An anti-fluoride trick: Impressing the naive with citations

One way to make an article look impressive is to use citations – the more you use, the more impressive. Well, so some people think.

citations

Some of the over 140 references in Geoff Pain’s article. These references impress some people but are irrelevant to Pain’s arguments.

Again and again I find anti-fluoridation campaigners refer to the number of references in an article or book as a sign of scientific credibility. Paul Connett often promotes his anti-fluoride book by referring to its 80 pages of references. And in a recent on-line discussion where I criticised an article by the anti-fluoride campaigner Geoff Pain I was told that it contained over 140 references, as if that was the end of the story – his article must be valid!

Pain’s article is Fluoride causes heart disease, stroke and sudden death.” It’s one of series of propagandist articles which he has placed on the Researchgate we site. That website also impresses the anti-fluoride people as they think it gives the articles the scientific credibility of publication in a scientific journal. But anyone can belong to Researchgate and upload their articles. There is no peer review or any other form of quality control.

Geoff Pain has uploaded a screed of anti-fluoride propagandist articles with titles like :

  • Fluoridation Causes Cancer, so does the Fluoride content of Tea
  • Fluoride causes Death and Disease
  • Toxicity of Fluoride
  • What do you know about Fluoride?/
  • Impact of Fluoride on Women, the Unborn and Your Children
  • Fluoride is a bio-accumulative, endocrine disrupting, neurotoxic carcinogen – not a nutrient
  • Plumbosolvency exacerbated by Water Fluoridation
  • Fluoride Causes Diabetes
  • NHMRC = Politics, Not Science. Australians – Victims of Tragic Fluoridation Experiments
  • Fluoride doped hydroxyapatite in soft tissues and cancer. A literature review.

So you get the idea. With titles like this you will not be surprised to find his Twitter tag is @FluoridePoison. Although he describes some of these articles as “conference papers” they are, of course, talks given to anti-fluoride meetings. He describes the other articles as “technical reports.”

He is a consultant with a science degree and claims to specialise in analytical chemistry. But there is no credible science in his “technical reports” and “conference papers” on fluoride.

Literature trawling

Pain uses the technique of literature trawling that Declan Waugh has made famous in his anti-fluoride articles. This involves searching the scientific literature for any reference to fluoride and possible toxic effects. A technique which produces mostly irrelevant articles – but so what. They just bung the citations into their articles and make unjustified claims. They rely on their readers never to check the references anyway The committed anti-fluoridation person is only impressed by the number of references  – not their relevance.

No-one has the time or interest to completely debunk such articles by going through every single claim and checking every single citation. Nor are such articles worthy of such attention.

So let’s settle for a “partial debunking.” Here I will just take a single central claim in Pain’s article linked to above and check the relevance of his supporting citations. This should be sufficient to show how he misuses citations and misrepresents the science. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the rest of this article and about his other articles.

The claim

He claims a literature search shows “numerous examples of evidence relevant to cardiovascular damage by Fluoride” and cites “[Houtman 1996, Tyagi 1996, Artru 1997, Johnson 1998, Maheswaran 1999, Jehle
2000, Kousa 2004, Bogatchera 2006 and references therein].” So let’s see how relevant those citations are and if they actually support his claim.

Let’s see how relevant those citations are and if they actually support his claim.

Houtman 1996 reported:

” In general, the elements selenium, copper, zinc, chromium, and manganese seem to counteract the development of cardiovascular diseases, whereas cadmium and may be lead seem to stimulate it. Effects of arsenic, silicon and fluorine are unclear and for cobalt absent.”

So no evidence of fluoride causing cardiovascular damage there.

PMSF

The organic phenyl methyl sulfonyl fluoride does not contain fluoride.

Tyagi et al., 1996 (Post-transcriptional Regulation of Extracellular Matrix Metalloproteinase in Human Heart End-stage Failure Secondary to Ischemic Cardiomyopathy“) used the metal chelators  phenanthroline and phenyl methyl sulfonyl fluoride in laboratory identification of bands identified in immunoblot analysis of proteinases extracted from heart tissue. This has absolutely nothing to do with fluoridation or the fluoride anion. Phenyl methyl sulfonyl fluoride is an organic compound and does not contain the fluoride anion.

 

Artru et al 1997 investigated use of anaesthetics sevoflurane and isoflurane and their effect on intracranial pressure, middle cerebral artery flow velocity, and plasma inorganic fluoride concentrations in neurosurgical patients. There was no investigation of cardiovascular damage. The plasma fluoride was derived from breakdown of the anaesthetics – there was no fluoridation involved.

4 ami

4-amidinophenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride

Johnson et al., 1998 does deal with heart-related matters – atherosclerosis, infarction and stroke. But there is no mention of fluoride or fluoridation. Pain has picked up this article in his literature trawling purely because the study used the protease inhibitor 4-amidinophenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride as a reagent. Again, this is an organic chemical – it does not contain the inorganic fluoride species. The study has no relevance to fluoridation.

Maheswaran 1999 (“Magnesium in drinking water supplies and mortality from acute myocardial infarction in north west England“) investigated the relationship between magnesium and cardiovascular problems and found none. Yes, fluoride and other ions were considered as possible confounders but the paper specifically states:

“Calcium and fluoride appeared to have no significant association with mortality from acute myocardial infarction.”

So Pain’s literature trawling has found  a paper mentioning fluoride and cardiovascular problems but it does not support his claim they are related.

Jehle 2000 did research the human coronary artery but again it was produced by Pain’;s literature trawling simply because the investigation used the protease inhibitor reagent phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (see comments on Tyagi 1996). Nothing here to do with fluoridation or the inorganic fluoride species used in community water fluoridation.

Kousa 2004 (“Geochemistry of ground water and the incidence of acute myocardial infarction in Finland“) obviously is related to cardiovascular problems and, yes, fluoride was one of the chemical species in water considered. But what do the authors say:

“Fluoride concentrations of around one mg/l in household water may be beneficial . . . In this study one mg/l increment in the fluoride concentration in the drinking water was associated with a 3% decrease in the risk of AMI [acute myocardial infarction ]. “

And they concluded that their findings suggested fluoride played a protective role.

So a success for Pain’s literature trawling – a reported relation between fluoride and cardiovascular problems – but the opposite to what Pain claim. And he didn’t bother mentioning  this, did he? How honest is that?

Bogatchera 2006 does not seem to relate at all to cardiovascular issues, but sodium fluoride was used to stimulate bovine cells. The concentration of sodium fluoride used was 20mM – equivalent to 380 ppm fluoride. Well above concentrations found in drinking water and the recommended optimum level of 0.7 ppm. Not at all relevant to community water fluoridation and it simply does not support Pain’s claim.

Well, that’s enough. I am not going to search Pain’s “references therin.” Nor will I bother with any of his other claims or cited references. I think you get the picture.

Conclusions

Geoff Pain

Anti-fluoride campaigners always promote people like Paul Connett and Pain as “renowned” or “world experts.” They aren’t

People like Geoff Pain promote themselves as “renowned” experts on community water fluoridation – but they simply aren’t. Surely the dishonest way Pain has used citations in the article considered here illustrates this. And we can be sure that he has approached his other fluoride articles in the same way.

So there is a warning. Just don’t be impressed by large numbers of references. Check them out – or at least check some of them out. If you find the references you check do not support the claims being made, or are maybe even completely unrelated to the claims, then draw the obvious conclusions.

NOTE: I am contacting Geoff pain to offer him the right of reply here and a chance to enter into any discussion.

Similar articles

 

322 responses to “An anti-fluoride trick: Impressing the naive with citations

  1. This is standard procedure In the blogs, they quote their “research’, and I have great fun in looking at it, and explaining to other readers that the quote had nothing to do with the intended implication. or is full of the magic words, “could’ “may’ “suggested” “probable” ” In some cases” “more research is needed”
    In other words, please give me more money
    Or they list a statement like “The Lancet says” this and no reference to a source
    They dont like it when one is requested, It never seems to eventuate .

    If the research had any quality it would be picked up by the Top Scientific and Dental research institutions, and widely distributed among the Professionals involved. Without resorting to some bottom feeding website to try and gain traction.

    Like

  2. Usual irrelevant rant Ken . . . I don’t give you, or anyone else the right to decide what is good for me or not and certainly to not add things to my drinking water without my consent . . . end of story . . . :|}

    Like

  3. Typical selfish response from the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby
    You have choices, no body is forcing you to drink the water That is your choice.
    Maybe you should talk to your council about providing you with a special pipe to your residence that is fluoride free. Good luck with that

    Like

  4. I went through a few of the “300” studies Connett has posted on the “FAN” website that his minions claim show adverse effects of fluoridation. I found sumilar results to what you have exposed with Pain. The studies I viewed were either irrelevant to optimal level fluoride, did not mention fluoride, or demonstrated reasons supporting fluoridation.

    Truly disgusting.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  5. Steve Slott, The NZ Royal Society report which maybe you are including is where they confused half a standard deviation with half an IQ point. When they acknowledged their mistake they did not comment on the difference in consequences there would be. They still let it stay as “insignificant.” Do you think 7 IQ points to be insignificant?

    Also the Broadbent Dunedin Study report they put a lot of weight on did not acknowledge how many of their control population of about 100 were living in Mosgiel and so consuming water with nitrate nitrogen level of 4 mg/litre. That is a level at which thyroid effects can start to show, and thyroid insufficiency can affect IQ. The exaggerated form is cretinism, if you have heard the word “cretin” being levelled at people.So that is not a good verified control population for IQ when the fluoridated supplies did not contain nitrate nitrogen to anywhere near that extent.

    After receiving criticism in a letter to AJPH Broadbent et al commented that dental fluorosis was not significantly correlated to IQ, that is after a town-country difference be allowed for. But they did not comment on whether the “dental fluorosis,” the white marks on the teeth, were characteristic of fluoride damage or other damage. Fluoride damage produces diffuse marks symmetrical in the mouth, as opposed to assymetrical more demarcated marks which can result from other trauma like filling to the baby tooth. Since fluoride is said to help teeth, including baby teeth, that should mean fewer baby teeth fillings, therefore less trauma-caused “dental fluorosis” in the fluoride area. That would work against correlation of “dental fluorosis” with fluoridation. It would be needed to use the true fluoride-caused dental fluorosis for a proper fluoride-IQ assessment.

    So I do not feel the Broadbent study and the RS report and other studies which cite it to be convincing.

    Like

  6. Brian – the NZ Fluoridation review did not make a mistake to acknowledge – any more that Harvard University did in their press release.

    The did not unconfused standard deviations with IQ points at all in their report. All that happened is that in the summary IQ points were mentioned instead of standard deviations. That was corrected.

    Exactly the same thing happened with the Harvard university press release.

    In both cases this “mistake” was acknowledge and corrected. there was certainly no need to change the body of the NZ fluoridation review.

    You are just blindly repeating the lies of your masters – Connett and co – who seek to completely misrepresent this issue.

    yes, I know your task is to “raise doubt about the science – and in this case the Review and Broadbent’s work. Tellingly you critique is completely data free.

    Until you supply supporting data you have no credibility.

    Like

  7. NZ Olympic Gold Medalists born in F or nonF
    Valerie Adams Rotorua nonF.
    Zoe Stevenson nonF
    Eve Macfarlane nonF
    Blair Tuke Kawakawa nonF
    Peter Burling nonF
    Linda Villumsen, Denmark nonF
    Lydia Ko, Seoul, nonF
    Lisa Carrington partial F. Born in nonF Tauranga, brought up in Opohe/Whakatane which I understand had about 4mg/litre till they were told to increase it to 7 a couple of years ago.
    Hamish Bond, F
    Ethan Mitchell, F
    Sam Webster, F
    Eddie Dawkins F.

    So leaving out Lisa that is 7 nonF against 4F

    Like

  8. Sorry 0.4 mg/litre going to 0.7 fluoride level for Whakatane/Opohe

    Like

  9. Quick, Brian – send a paper off.

    I am, sure Fluoride will publish it – and quickly. They don’t worry about peer review.🙂

    Like

  10. Broadbent et al are not servicing my requests for data. But if I have not posted it before here is Broadbent et al work on effect of baby tooth trouble on demarcated “fluorosis” in permanent teeth.
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Thomson2/publication/8009494_Does_Caries_in_Primary_Teeth_Predict_Enamel_Defects_in_Permanent_Teeth_A_Longitudinal_Study/links/00b4952157c138204c000000.pdf
    I presume they did not bother to distinguish in the IQ comment in AJPH.

    Like

  11. soundhill,

    Wow, what a finding!

    Now, so that you can’t be accused of cherry picking the data, all you have to do is get the same data for the remaining 11,000 athletes at the Rio Olympics…

    Like

  12. “Stuartg: “Now, so that you can’t be accused of cherry picking the data, all you have to do is get the same data for the remainin11,000 athletes at the Rio Olympics”

    If I had done that, you would say it is cherry picking just to look at Rio. Please go back to all the Olympics right back to births when fluoridation started.

    Dunedin Study/Broadbent cherry picked by not including Christchurch where the natural iodine in the water is lower than in Otago.

    I might not even find the effect if I dip down to Silver medals. Same as having a greater effect with rugby captains. Auckland has produced plenty of All Blacks, not-captain born since fluoridation started in 1966. You are trying to bring me back away from the outliers.

    Like

  13. Here’s some more cherry picking. Unfluoridated Mosgiel does pretty well in rugby in Dunedin.

    Unfluoridated Petone rugby has been pretty good in Wellington. But since Petone College closed and the kids go across the river to Hutt Valley High School, then go on to play for the Hutt Valley and Marist Old Boys, HVOBM is now the winner with Petone in the top three, all of those top three well above the other teams, though.

    Like

  14. Sorry that was for the Hardham Cup, which is a play off between the bottom 6 teams out of Wellington Rugby’s 14 Premier teams.

    Petone College closed in 1998 (for 4 years HVHS used it then) so I think it is fair to look at Petone rugby results to about 2000.

    Unfluoridated Petone has about 0.2% of the population of Wellington region.
    Its rugby team used to quite often win the Jubilee Cup as the top Wellington team.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_Rugby_Football_Union

    From 1929 when the Jubilee Cup began till 1965 when fluoridation started in Wellington but not Petone, Petone won 8 out of 37 years and had 1 draw. That is 23%.

    From 1966 the year after fluoridation until 2000 Petone won 15 out of 35 years. That is 43%.

    Like

  15. You missed this one, Brian:
    tweet

    Like

  16. USA have a lot of different systems, units of measurement, gun laws, military spending excess, lack of freer medical care, prison rate, high fluoridation rate, funny use of words, e.g.
    “adverb: momentarily

    1.
    for a very short time.
    “as he passed Jenny’s door, he paused momentarily”
    synonyms: briefly, temporarily, fleetingly, for a moment, for a second, for an instant, for a minute, for a little while
    “as he passed her door, he paused momentarily”
    2.
    North American
    at any moment; very soon.
    “my husband will be here to pick me up momentarily”
    synonyms: (very) soon, in a minute, in a second, in a trice, in a flash, shortly, any minute, any minute now, in a short time, in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, in (less than) no time, in no time at all, before you know it, before long; More
    informalin a jiffy, in two shakes, in two shakes of a lamb’s tail, before you can say Jack Robinson, in the blink of an eye, in a blink, in the wink of an eye, in a wink, before you can say knife;
    informalin a tick, in two ticks..”

    In that tweet, “because of” means “correlated to.” That meaning may even be wider than America. Do you say, after analysing Malin and Till’s work that ADHD is different “because of” altitude rather than fluoridation, when you mean correlated?

    “Because of the fluoride in our water, people will be able to identify this high population country and know certain other things about it.”

    Like

  17. Other things such as the temperature scale is water boils at 212 degrees rather than 100 most other places.

    “Because of the high miles per gallon figure this will be a bigger car.”
    Not just one correlation there. USA has had a smaller gallon and bigger cars in general.

    Like

  18. soundhill,

    You have carefully selected a group of people who happen to provide support for your beliefs. That’s also known as cherry picking.

    You claim the effect is in gold medalists (“might not even find the effect if I dip down to silver”) – but your list includes silver medalists. Why did you choose to include silvers in your list of golds? Because the golds alone don’t support your beliefs?

    It’s also an incomplete list of NZ gold medal holders.

    What about those NZ gold medalists that you chose not to mention in your list? Where is your data from them? What reason do you have to not include them in your list? Don’t they support your beliefs?

    Carefully and obviously cherry picking examples to support your beliefs is not the way to get anyone to pay attention to them.

    Like

  19. soundhill,

    “NZ Olympic Gold Medalists born in F or nonF” and “From 1966 the year after fluoridation until 2000 Petone won 15 out of 35 years”

    So – you’re saying the effect happens only if you are born in a non-fluoridated area? But you can see it immediately in sports team results? No delay until those newborns get old enough to partake in adult sports?

    As I said previously, I have no interest in rugby, but I’m sure that I would have noticed the news reports if either Petone or Wellington fielded a team of newborns.

    You don’t appear to notice that the cherry picked data you present actually disproves your beliefs.

    https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/08/14/fluoridation-freedom-of-choice/#comment-77227

    Like

  20. soundhill,

    The first thing that you need to do is to clearly and precisely record your beliefs.

    To the best of my knowledge, you have never actually done that. You’ve just danced around the subject with only vague references to your beliefs.

    If you can’t clearly and precisely say what those beliefs are, then why expect others to pay any attention to them?

    Like

  21. soundhill,

    “Sorry 0.4 mg/litre going to 0.7 fluoride level for Whakatane/Opohe”

    “Do you think 7 IQ points to be insignificant?”

    So, you make a minor error and correct yourself, but you castigate Broadbent for doing exactly the same thing?

    Isn’t that rather hypocritical?

    Like

  22. Stuartg thanks for pointing out my fault.

    I was reading too quickly and took the newspaper heading “revealed” to mean it had already happened.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11684418

    Do you have a list of winners at hand?

    And you are caught in two-valued stuff that it has to be an infancy newborn effect or a current one. I’ve talked about that before.

    And please don’t apply the whole set of principles of “experimental” science to “observational” science and epidemiology.

    Like

  23. Stuartg: “So, you make a minor error and correct yourself, but you castigate Broadbent for doing exactly the same thing?”

    Which error?

    The SD/IQ error was the Royal Society error.

    A lofty organisation should have corrected themselves better,

    Do you presume 7 IQ points not to be clinically “significant”? Or is it statistical significance of the review they are questioning?

    Or are you talking about the Broadbent apparent error of not elucidating the type of “dental fluorosis”? Do you consider that to be a minor error, even though it can change the results of the relationships?

    Like

  24. soundhill,

    “thanks for pointing out my fault.” – which one in particular?

    – including silvers in your list of golds?
    – not including all gold medal winners in your list?
    – cherry picking your results?
    – hypocritical approach to errors (you’re allowed them, but no-one else is)
    – belief that CWF has an effect in infancy other than that on teeth? “I think the effect is in infancy”
    – contradicting your own belief? “they didn’t produce All Blacks from their team after Timaru fluoridated”, “From 1966 the year after fluoridation until 2000 Petone won 15 out of 35 years”

    Clarity and precision are the mark of the scientific method. I wish that you would learn them.

    Like

  25. soundhill,

    https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/an-anti-fluoride-trick-impressing-the-naive-with-citations/#comment-77535

    Ken has answered that question for you on multiple occasions, the most recent being https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/an-anti-fluoride-trick-impressing-the-naive-with-citations/#comment-77504

    Why should I answer as well when it’s obvious that you don’t pay attention to the answers?

    Like

  26. Stuartg: “As I said previously, I have no interest in rugby,”

    You haver that in common with Steve Slott and you are out of sync with the public.

    “but I’m sure that I would have noticed the news reports if either Petone or Wellington fielded a team of newborns.” Rather “Who were in a fluoridated town when newborns.” People might notice the difference but would they connect it when people are telling them they are nutters if they think fluoride to have any adverse effects?

    Like

  27. Stuartg: “Ken has answered that question for you on multiple occasions,”
    I don’t think he has addressed clinical and statistical significance in the RS analysis.

    Like

  28. soundhill,

    http://www.sportnz.org.nz/assets/uploads/attachments/managing-sport/research/sport-and-active-recreation-in-the-lives-of-new-zealand-adults.pdf

    Rugby is the 16th most popular sport/activity among men in NZ; it doesn’t even rate the top 20 in women.

    Touch rugby has 163,000 players, 4.9% of the population, rugby has 109,000 players and was not given a percentage

    I think it may be you that is out of sync with the public.

    Like

  29. soundhill,

    “I don’t think he has addressed clinical and statistical significance in the RS analysis.”

    Read back. Perhaps you will find there is nothing to be addressed.

    Like

  30. soundhill,

    Of course, you could always address some of the questions I have asked of you…

    Like

  31. Stuartg: “Rugby is the 16th most popular sport/activity among men in NZ”

    They are talking about physical activity, like doing gardening which would be high up after walking, not watching on TV or attending matches, taking bets, thinking of our contry’s prowess.

    As an addendum, gardening will be getting less since we are taking Urban development/densification to greater extremes than Australia. The public have been conned into thinking we need to be close to centres of employmenbt to avoid the greenhouse effect of travel, and not to note, as I have said in the Christchurch GCUDS process around 2008 that energy will become cheap like solar, and work will get to be more on line. But that abrogates profit to developers who had the say. Gardening also works against the food multinationals.

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-price-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160829

    Like

  32. Sturatg: ““I don’t think he has addressed clinical and statistical significance in the RS analysis.”

    Read back. Perhaps you will find there is nothing to be addressed.”

    That is what you hope people to think. “Who cares about 7 IQ points?”
    The more dumb people are the less they may appear to care, or to be able to put up resistance.

    Like

  33. soundhill,

    “They are talking about physical activity”

    And you weren’t? It’s not the spectators that win games or medals.

    Or are you saying that walking isn’t a sporting activity? Tell that to Wang Zhen – he won the gold for walking at Rio.

    You’ve just been given evidence that contradicts your belief that rugby is the most common sport in New Zealand.

    You can’t accept that your belief is wrong, so you are trying to dismiss the evidence.

    Belief – what is left when you don’t have data

    Now, how about answering some of those questions I asked earlier? You know the ones – those that you haven’t answered because to answer them would mean actually having evidence.

    Like

  34. soundhill,

    “I don’t think he has addressed clinical and statistical significance in the RS analysis.”

    If that’s what you think, then it’s you that needs to address it.

    Your knowledge enables you to perceive a problem. Use that knowledge of yours to provide an answer to the problem. It doesn’t matter that people with greater training in epidemiology and statistics than you don’t see or understand the problem; you’ve seen it, so go ahead and fix it.

    I have previously recommended that you look up Dunning-Kruger. It’s time that you did so.

    Like

  35. Stuartg’s neurons have lost the ability to have “popular” and “common” in separate categories.

    Like

  36. It was 0.45 SD not o.45 IQ points that should have been written. Was the mistake made before the analysis proclaiming insignificance, or only at the typing up stage?

    Like

  37. Brian, perhaps you should read the NZ Fluoridation review instead of relying on the lies from Connett.

    There was no mistake in the body of the review. It was clearly referring to standard deviations.

    The only mistake came in writing up the summary and that was fixed and attention brought to the mistake -exactly the same as happened in the Harvard University Press release.

    Come on – are you hassling Harvard University?

    Or should you harras the authors of the original report Choi et al? After all, they say:

    “The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our analysis may seem small and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing.”

    Now, move on! If you want to pursue the relative importance compared with experiment errors in testing then do so with Choi et al.

    Like

  38. What it is reading now:
    “Further, the claimed shift of less than one standard deviation suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artefact of no functional significance.”

    1 SD contains 68% of the population.

    Like

  39. I would say whoever let that through is hinting about feeling uneasy about the claim “of no functional significance.” Does it need to be a shift in IQ of 1 SD or greater to be statistically secure and have “functional significance”?

    Like

  40. As I said, Brian, have that out with the original authors.

    There is no point in rabbiting on about it here.

    Like

  41. Ken can you give your logic for supporting a comment like that?

    Like

  42. Yes, my logic is that Choi et al did the research, they were aware of the errors involved both in combining data from a number of sources and in IQ measurements themselves. That made the statement so it is best you talk to them about it – although, like other scientists I am sure you will be ignored.

    Like

  43. Choi et al talked of 0.45 SD. Not anything near 1.

    Like

  44. I doubt I would get a reply from RS either.

    I suggest the way RS originally summarized made sense as far as it went:
    “Further, the claimed shift of less than one IQ point suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artefact of no functional significance.”

    They have said 0.45 IQ points would not be significant, nor would even 1.

    But then they have just changed their 1 IQ point into 1 standard deviation.
    That is an increase of 15 times, and they are still saying the same, “likely to be a measurement or statistical artefact of no functional significance.”

    Later they go on to say:

    “Setting aside the methodological failings of these studies, Choi et
    al. determined that the standardised weighted mean difference in IQ scores between
    “exposed” and reference populations was only -0.45. The authors themselves note that this
    difference is so small that it “may be within the measurement error of IQ testing”.”

    Which gives the impression it can be ignored.

    But what Choi et al say:
    “The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our
    analysis may seem small and may be within the
    measurement error of IQ testing. However, as
    research on other neurotoxicants has shown, a
    shift to the left of IQ distributions in a population will have substantial impacts, especially
    among those in the high and low ranges of the
    IQ distribution (Bellinger 2007).”

    In other words what they have found may have substantial impacts on the bright and impaired.

    And they refer to an experiment: ” Supporting the plausibility of our
    findings, rats exposed to 1
    ppm (50
    μmol/L)
    of water fluoride for 1
    year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased
    levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared
    with controls (Varner et al. 1998)”.

    And note, Choi did not say as RS claimed: “this
    difference is so small.” They said “this difference may seem small.”

    Like

  45. soundhill,

    I see that you are not answering any of the questions asked of you.

    Would you care to enlighten us as to the reasons you’re not answering?

    After all, since you expect others to answer your questions, it’s reasonable for you to do the same in return.

    Like

  46. Stuartg from my observation fluoridation seems to strongly oppose being selected as an All Black captain in Auckland if you were born during fluoridation. It also seems to affect sports performance at other times.
    That is not a belief it is an observation and a hypothesis can be formed to be tested.

    I apologised for using the first “revealed” Olympics winners list I came upon without properly checking it.

    What list have you used? The Wikis I found were for previous games.

    And I think you are talking about this comment of mine:

    “Stuartg: “As I said previously, I have no interest in rugby,”

    You haver that in common with Steve Slott and you are out of sync with the public.”

    Interest in rugby can continue on when it is no longer possible to be an active competitive player, I have played few games but sometimes take an interest in watching. I also think if the All Blacks win in international rugby it may also help the NZ economy.

    You and Steve are making it sound as if you are not interested in rugby and so don’t care if fluoridation affects rugby ability.

    Like

  47. soundhill,

    It’s up to you to show that your “observation” is not a p-value discrepancy. Until you produce the data it will remain your belief.

    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 what your “observation” actually is.

    You need to provide something to support your “observation”.

    My suggestions:
    – show us the data you have. So far you have not produced any data to back your belief.
    – show it’s not limited to All Blacks. What about the womens’ team? Provincial teams? If it’s only one team then you have seen a p-value discrepancy – a coincidence.
    – show it’s not limited to one country. What about Australian, Japanese, Welsh, Ethiopian, Italian national teams? If it’s only one country then there is a p-value discrepancy.
    – show it’s not limited to one sport. What about football, hockey, basketball, netball? If it’s only one sport then there is a p-value discrepancy.
    – show us whether it is seen in individual sports as well as team sports.
    – show us that the effect occurs in amateur sports as well as professional. Is it found in school sports? Amateur leagues? Or only after people are being paid for their sporting prowess?
    – show us when the effect is supposed to take place. Does it have prenatal, neonatal, infant, childhood, teenage or adult effects? Any, some, or all of those stages of life?
    – show us whether it is an immediate or delayed effect. Can we see it immediately CWF is introduced? Before CWF is introduced? Is there a time interval after CWF introduction before it occurs? Does the effect occur consistently worldwide? Or does it vary?
    – does it occur in areas of naturally fluoridated water? Or not? Is there a greater effect in areas with very high fluoride water?
    – does it occur with other forms of fluoride supplementation? Fluoridated milk? Fluoridated salt? Fluoridated toothpaste? Dental fluoride treatments?
    – is it perhaps related to something else that is used to treat drinking water?

    Or have you just seen a coincidence?

    These are just some of the questions that would occur to a scientist following your “observation”. If you have considered any of them, you have not managed to mention it up until now.

    So far you have a vague statement. You haven’t even managed to state clearly and precisely what your “observation” is.

    You have not produced any data to support your “observation”.

    Until you produce more than just a vague “observation”, this remains the belief of a single person – yourself.

    Like

  48. Stuartg didn’t you understand the Petone data? There are 14 rugby teams in the Wellington area. After fluoridation in all of Wellington but Petone, Petone started being top of the competition twice as much, from winning 23% to winning 43% of the years. That’s an observation with a bit of data attached.

    In fluoridated milk the fluoride will be more bound to calcium, things will be a bit different.

    With your other fluoride suggestions like toothpaste: there is not the regular ingression of enoloase-disabling fluoride into the part of the intestines where such things as butyrate are being synthesised by microorganisms. Homestasis can be affected by a percentage, I hypothesise. With active sport water will go through the stomach faster and so its fluoride will have less opportunity to be converted to HF and so be absorbed in the stomach and so not be sent to bones and urine.

    Like

  49. That is in active sports people, especially in hot climates, and for infants where the stomach acidity is less, and ,more liquid is taken in per body weight.

    Like

  50. soundhill,

    How are you going with that clear and precise documentation of your observation/idea/belief?

    Nothing of what you just said appears to have any direct relevance to your ideas.

    Maybe it’s because you haven’t managed to enunciate them clearly and precisely, leaving vague notions that require others to guess at what your ideas/beliefs actually are?

    I took a minute to look at Google – and found four rugby teams in Petone. Which does your “data” apply to? One, some, or all? If not all, why not? Did you include all years that rugby has been played in Petone and Wellington? Or not? If not, why not?

    I’m not going to check how many rugby teams are in Wellington; I would expect over fifty. The same points apply to Wellington teams as to Petone.

    Your “data” consists of two percentages – where is the source for your “data” so that others can check it out?

    It seems that you are unaware that scientists use references for a reason and what that reason actually is.

    Like

  51. The 14 Premier teams which compete for the Jubilee Cup. Before 1939 when it was introduced things were a bit different. I gave the Wiki with the data.

    Like

  52. soundhill,

    …but you still haven’t managed to tell anybody what your belief is…

    Like

  53. soundhill,

    “I gave the Wiki with the data.”

    When did you last read a peer reviewed paper from a respectable journal that used Wiki? Primary sources, please.

    Remember, it’s your belief, no-one else’s. It’s up to you to say exactly what that belief is and then produce data to demonstrate you haven’t just noticed a coincidence.

    Like

  54. soundhill,

    Petone has non-fluoridated water. So do some other parts of Wellington.

    Why did you single out Petone and not include the other non-fluoridated areas of Wellington in your rugby comparison?

    Like

  55. http://www.gw.govt.nz/fluoride-2/
    “Petone and Korokoro – supplied from Hutt City Council’s Rahui reservoir – are the only areas within the four cities that receive unfluoridated water. This is because they have historically had an unfluoridated water supply and Hutt City Council asked that we continue that arrangement following a public survey in 2000.”

    Korokoro with a population of about 1300 would probably be too small to have a Premier team and I think they would have played in the Petone team since there is an overpass over the motorway, but some may go to HVOM.

    Like

  56. soundhill,

    So, you have incomplete data in your example – “I think”, “would probably”, “may”. Maybe you didn’t even recognise that it was incomplete, or that you were making unwarranted and undocumented assumptions.

    It’s not a good idea when you replace data with undocumented assumptions and don’t even realise that you are doing so.

    If you are not prepared to clearly and precisely document your ideas, but instead present vague notions about them, don’t be surprised when the only thing that people find to comment about is your inability to apply the scientific method.

    Like

  57. soundhill,

    Have you considered that people may not play their sport in the area they were brought up in? Or even in a different area from where they live?

    “Allowing Wellington to lure the better players of these provinces with ease” – your own reference.

    If you claim that CWF affects the ability of a sports team then you need to document the CWF consumption of each member of the team as well as all of their opponents. Instead of acquiring the data, you have made invalid and undocumented assumptions. Did you even recognise the assumptions?

    Like

  58. soundhill,

    The “effect” you have noticed in Petone also coincides with development of increased population mobility. Did you consider this as a possible cause of the “effect”?

    Did you allow for employment rates, degree of deprivation, average family size? Smoking rates? Income?

    There are many potential causes of the “effect”, not least being the coaches. Did you consider any of them before settling on you belief about CWF?

    Like

  59. Brian, here is a new hobby horse for you. One of your mates in the alternative health industry is now pushing the claim that fluoride is responsible for hair loss. So what about giving us all the data for male pattern baldness in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas? But. More seriously, you suffer from the 2 value problem you accuse your discussion partners of. In your case fluoridated or unfluoridated. But reality is never that simple. Hair loss, sporting ability and things like ADHD are never related to simple factors – although the ideologically driven can make them appear so by cherry picking data and avoiding important factors. Who ever heard of investigating sporting ability without considering many factors – including genetic ones? Well, I guess if you have snake oil to sell who cares about honesty.

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  60. Thanks Stuartg for your interest.
    Players do move around. Petone being a good team might have attracted players.

    But please think about this: From 1929, the start of Jubilee (sorry I may have said 1939 before) to the time of fluoridation the average number of Premier teams in Wellington region would only be 7 or 8. After fluoridation to the end of my study would be 12 or 13 average teams.

    So after fluoridation Petone moves from 23% of say 7.5 to 43% of say 12.5.which is about 3 times better isn’t it?

    Maybe “poaching” of players could do that. I hope someone who knows about rugby is secretly reading this, and could write about it.

    Formation of Wellington rugby clubs

    1871 Wellington FC
    1883 Poneke FC
    1885 Petone Rugby Club
    1900 Johnsonville RFC
    1921 Eastbourne RFC
    1946 Wainuiomata RFC
    1947 Tawa RFC
    1949 Stokes Valley RFC
    1959 Paremata-Plimmerton RFC
    1969 Oriental-Rongotai FC
    1971 Marist-St Pat’s RFC
    1980 Avalon RFC
    1983 Western Suburbs RFC
    1989 Northern United RFC
    1991 Old Boys University
    1992 Hutt Old Boys-Marist RFC
    2014 Upper Hutt Rams RFC

    Like

  61. Thanks Ken.
    Indeed fluoridation is not a constant. The rate has been lessened so it might be expected that Petone would lose its advantage. That has been happening, though complicated by loss of Petone College.

    Does anyone reading have the fluoridation levels and dates?

    Regarding baldness that may occur from too much or too little selenium. Sheep have been cured from white muscle disease by selenium so more may be in NZers diet, possibly from about the same time fluoridation was introduced.

    Like

  62. soundhill,

    I’ve been trying to help you.

    I have suggested that the first thing you should do is to write down your ideas clearly. You haven’t responded to that suggestion, which means that as far as others are concerned, your ideas remain a jumbled mix of conspiracist gobbledegook that are somehow vaguely connected in your mind.

    I have asked simple questions, ones that derive from scientific consideration of what can be gleaned from the ill-defined tangled mishmash you post. You don’t even attempt to answer them, which unfortunately means that you derive no insight into how to apply the scientific method to your own ideas.

    Instead, you ask me to delve into the history of New Zealand rugby.

    Didn’t you read? I have no interest in rugby. None. Zero. Zip. I just don’t care about it. As for its history…

    My interest is in demonstrating how to use science to provide answers. I would be suggesting similar questions for you to ask of your data even if the sport you chose was synchronised llama juggling. (And that interests me as much as rugby). I’m trying to ask appropriate questions to help provide insight into how apparent relationships are frequently entirely coincidental.

    Since you do not consider the questions I suggest, you retain the lack of insight you began with.

    Your “observations” are pure coincidence. An apophany. Your brain has been fooled… by its own human nature. The best way yet found to avoid being fooled is by using the scientific method.

    By asking questions such as the ones I suggested, you would be using the scientific method. The answers would give you some insight into whether the patterns you are seeing are real or whether they are the result of spurious pattern seeking activities within the human brain.

    Your brain has seen some coincidences and labelled them as a relationship. You accepted the labeling without question. You have stuck with that ancient, error prone, apophenia that our brains evolved millions of years ago.

    Others reading Ken’s blog are using the scientific method. Because of that, they are able to identify the coincidences that you see as relationships. They accept that their brains can be fooled, that apparent patterns are spurious. They can accept reality as it is, instead of how the want it to be.

    Try asking those questions I suggested; you may experience an epiphany.

    Like

  63. Stuartg epidemiology doesn’t prove anything. At a p value of 0.05, the normal one used for significance, if you did the observations 20 times, one set would give you your correlation or better just by chance – a coincidence as you call it. If you ask for a p value lower than 0.05 you could be excluding relationships that actually exist, and have a mechanism. So 0.05 is the normal compromise.

    It takes a while to get data together. I get a result based on Wiki rugby results and give the ref and you tell me to go to the real source. If it is getting that important I suppose I could try.

    Like

  64. http://www.11v11.com/teams/manchester-united/tab/opposingTeams/opposition/Birmingham%20City/
    I gave that before. It is from “The home of football statistics and history.”
    Sorry I can’t vouch for the results, but they are interesting.
    They are the Birmingham vs Manchester football results. I have removed some stuff from 1896 to 1899 where it is called Newton Heath vs Small Heath. I am left with 100 Manchester vs Birmingham results up to 2011.
    After 1978 Manchester had no more losses. Something happened and I have given years after 1978 the value +1 and prior 0.
    A win by Manchester I have given the value +1, a draw 0 and a loss -1.
    I have put the pairs of values for each year into Vasssarstats rank correlation calculator.
    results n=100, Rs = 0.3031, t=3.15 df=98
    p one-tailed = 0.0010825
    p two-tailed = 0.002165

    Because of those p values it can be said with some confidence that the rank correlation between Manchester v Birmingham score and whether before 1978, or equal to or after it has a value of about 0.3. It is not a high correlation but I think whatever happened at 1978 explains 9% of the result outcomes very significantly.

    1978 happens to be 14 years after fluoridation started in Birmingham but not Manchester where it has never started. If this is a coincidence what other causes might there be?

    Like

  65. soundhill,

    “If it is getting that important I suppose I could try.”

    Well, you seem to be the person who thinks there’s something of significance about it. Everyone else recognises coincidence when they see it.

    “Birmingham versus Manchester football results”

    I see that you cherry picked your teams again. Why didn’t you include Manchester City as another professional club in Manchester (pop 2.6m)? What about Aston Villa, West Brom, Wolves, Stoke as professional clubs from Birmingham (pop 3.8m)? Those massive urban complexes have more than one football team each!

    Like

  66. Stuartg they were just the 100 year results I came across between the two cities. It you know about other result lists please say.

    Like

  67. By the way, soundhill, have you ever heard of population mobility? People no longer living where they were born or even where they work? The players of Manchester United are an excellent example.

    As I’ve said before, if fluoride has an effect on sporting prowess, then to confirm it you will have to document the fluoride history of every member of each team. You know, CWF, fluoride tablets, fluoride treatment, fluoride toothpaste, fluoridated milk, fluoridated salt…

    Since it’s you who believes there is something of importance in these coincidences, it’s up to you do the research. Ken has suggested a journal that would publish, even though you don’t want to use primary sources.

    Like

  68. soundhill,

    How about looking at the football results found in Saturday evening or Sunday morning UK newspapers for the last century and a half?

    Like

  69. …or maybe the results published on the websites of the individual clubs?

    Like

  70. soundhill,

    Don’t forget to include the results when the team reserves play each other, at least twice a year, otherwise you’re cherry picking again.

    Like

  71. Yes people move which could reduce the effect of the early childhood equation. If it still shows it shows how strong it is.

    Players can move to the teams which are doing better, and in that case they are already doing better before the new player comes. The new player may then amplify the effect of the original cause of better results. That would seem to show up as a logarithmic increase, as opposed to a step function (with a gradual slope step)

    The maths may show a summation of a step function followed by an added logarithmic increase.

    Like

  72. Good grief, soundhill.

    You think that you have made a simple observation, and have developed a belief to back that observation.

    Others have shown you that the relationship you believe in is anything but simple, with many other confounding and interrelated factors that you hadn’t even considered being much more likely to produce the effect. In other words, you have noticed a coincidence and subsequently had an apophany.

    Now, instead of exploring the other confounding factors that have been pointed out to you, you decide to try to complicate things even further.

    It appears that you’ll do anything to avoid acknowledging that your apophany may be an error.

    Your belief must be very important to you if you go to this sort of length in order to deny reality.

    Still, it’s your life. You’ve just demonstrated that no-one is going to prevent you diverting even further from reality in your conspiracy-based fantasy world.

    I just hope that no-one else is harmed by your fantasies.

    Like

  73. soundhill,

    One last attempt to point you towards reality:

    Which is more likely to change the performance of a sports team?

    A good (or bad) coach, or the presence (or absence) of an anion in the drinking water of infants who will join the team twenty years later?

    Like

  74. Stuartg: “Which is more likely to change the performance of a sports team?”

    Coaches can be powerful but they cannot override certain things. A good coach of sorts wants to shine by getting hold of a good team and improving them.

    Like

  75. soundhill,

    Nice avoidance of actually answering the question.

    Which is more likely to change the performance of a sports team? The team coach? Or miniscule amounts of an anion in drinking water when the team members were infants?

    Like

  76. Just because something is present or missing miniscule in amount doesn’t mean it has miniscule effect later. LIke defficiency or excess of a miniscule amount of iodine can affect the thyroid and affect IQ. If fluoride is supposed to affect teeth, why only them? Fluoride is the anion of fluorine which the most electronegative atom, and it has been found to worsen the effect of iodine deficiency.

    I hesitated to answer you before pointing out yet again you are stuck in a two-valued scenario. I say again those factors interact.

    Like

  77. No Brian.  It is you who are stick on a two value mindful – and naively so. Fluoride or no fluoride  for any ailment under the sun.

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  78. soundhill,

    So, still avoiding answering the direct question. Twice so far.

    As I said before, your belief must be very important to you to go to these lengths to deny reality.

    Which has the greater effect on the performance of a sports team?

    The team coach? Or the presence or absence of the fluoride anion in the drinking water of the team when they were infants a couple of decades earlier?

    Like

  79. Stuartg I hardly ever give a “direct” answer to either or two-valued questions.

    I did however answer that I think there is interaction.

    Now here is another effect:

    Take a look at the Ranfurly Shield results before and after fluoridation started in about 1965. I have gone to 2011 to be fair to earthquake effects.

    Years held related to 1965 fluoridation year
    ——-before –after
    Auckland 33% —-57%
    Wellington 27% 11%
    Canterbury 19% 48%
    Otago — 14% 0%

    Fluoridated Auckland had 72% increase but unfluoridated Canterbury had 152% increase.

    Fluoridated Wellington had 41% drop
    and Fluoridated Otago had a complete drop to zero.
    I did that quickly and there may be some errors.

    http://www.mitre10cup.co.nz/Competition/RanfurlyShield

    Like

  80. Ken: “No Brian. It is you who are stick on a two value mindful – and naively so. Fluoride or no fluoride for any ailment under the sun.”

    That isn’t me, Ken, I have said I a interested in finding an appropriate level. You seem to think 05 or 0.4 = 0.0

    Like

  81. Yes, you do, Brian. You ignore the complexity of the real world and look only for an effect from fluoride – even when other factors stick out like a sore thumb. Fluoride/no fluoride – naive 2 value system.

    That is not scientific – but it is what we get from snake oil salespeople. Such people are not “interested in finding an appropriate level.” Their interest is in raising doubt so they can sell their own products.

    Like

  82. soundhill,

    “I hardly ever give a “direct” answer”

    You hardly ever give an answer, full stop.

    Obviously, after being asked three times, three times declining to answer, and three times trying to hide that you aren’t answering, we reach the conclusion that you aren’t going to answer.

    To anyone based in reality the answer to the question asked of you is, of course, that the coach of a sporting team has by far the greater effect on the performance of the team.

    We can think of many things that can affect the performance of a sports team, and you were pointed towards some of them. To give just a couple of extra examples, other than the abilities of the coach, look at the contribution of different weather conditions and time of day to sports performance.

    Team members using fluoride tablets or drinking fluoridated water when they were toddlers just isn’t going to have a measurable effect on the performance of professionals, or even amateurs, two to three decades later.

    Haven’t you heard of Occam’s razor? Oh, wait, of course you haven’t. You didn’t learn science at high school.

    soundhill, just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean that other people don’t understand it. Just because you don’t understand the data, can’t find the data, or decide to ignore the data, doesn’t mean that the data doesn’t exist.

    The data is out there. You’ve been pointed to it and guided in what questions to ask of the evidence. You’ve decided to ignore all but some cherry picked data because to acknowledge the rest of the evidence would mean that your beliefs are wrong. Those beliefs have become a religion to you, an expression of faith.

    Your faith/belief that fluoride is the cause of all sorts of ailments has as much evidence to support it as the Romans had for genii loci. Nevertheless, even without evidence, they still worshipped each individual genius loci.

    You’ve demonstrated that you’ll continue to worship at the altar of anti-fluoridationism to the exclusion of reality.

    Like

  83. Ken it is not a matter to me of whether fluoride be a problem, it be a matter of how much.

    What other things can you think of for which Christchurch stands out form the other main centres apart from fluoridation at the levels which had been being used?

    From the 2010 NZ Year Book I have found the populations of the main centres half way through the pre and post fluoridation transition, roughly.

    ———-1936 1991 increase
    Auckland 226365 878220 3.88
    Christchurch -133515 303411 2.27
    Wellington 159357 324147 2.03
    Dunedin —–85608 107526 1.26

    By 1991 there would be more provinces playing so the Shield would be shared more thinly. But if the provincial teams selection process has anything to do with the number of populations to be selected from then Auckland should be dong a lot better.

    As a multiple of the Dunedin population:

    ———-1936——–1991
    Auckland 2.64———8.17
    Christchurch 1.56 ———2.82
    Wellington 1.86 ———3.01

    I have only worked with the urban centres which may account for some 3/4 of the NZ population, but it gives some idea that Canterbury (Christchurch) has been pulling way ahead of its population weight. I ask again what else can you think of besides its not having fluoridation like the other centres?

    Like

  84. soundhill,

    In other words, you believe that CWF is a problem.

    If that is your belief, then it’s up to you to prove your belief.

    It’s not up to others to prove you wrong; we already have the data to demonstrate that. We’ve had it for decades, with millions of people worldwide as the group being studied.

    Go ahead, show us that CWF has an effect other than reducing dental decay.

    After all, there’s been hundreds of millions of people worldwide, over several decades and multiple generations, for such an effect to be seen.

    Show us that it’s not just your imagination/belief where such an effect occurs.

    (Why do I get the sensation of deja vu as I type this?)

    Like

  85. soundhill,

    You asked a question.

    Answer:. Better training, better coaching, better management, fitter team, better players, using fluoride tablets as a child, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride dental treatment, lower humidity, higher environmental temperature, altitude, higher population mobility, higher average income, lesser degree of deprivation, better management, different professional atitude, different kick-off time, lesser recreational drugs, lesser recreational alcohol, different amounts of prohibited substances, marijuana use, P use, cocaine use, prescription drug abuse, luck, umpire skill, assistant umpire skill, bad luck, poor preparation for the game, good preparation for the game, partying the night before, prescription drug use, fatigue, one of the above, some of the above, all of the above. And I’m sure I’ve missed some influences. Cigarette smoking, sleep patterns, food intake, fluid intake…

    You say the effect is from fluoride, we say it’s coincidence. That means it’s up to you to show that it’s not caused by something on the list I just produced in about two minutes. If you like, I could double that list for you. Maybe even quadruple it.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Produce the evidence.

    Show us that this isn’t just a religious belief of yours with no data to support it.

    (Why am I getting the feeling of deja vu?)

    Like

  86. What a foolish statement:

    “What other things can you think of for which Christchurch stands out form the other main centres apart from fluoridation at the levels which had been being used?”

    That’s what I mean by your naïve 2 value preoccupation.

    There are plenty of difference between regions in New Zealand, geographically, nutritionally, ethnically and socially. And all you can think of is fluoride?

    That is idiotic and not at all scientific – but typical of the snake oil salesperson with something to sell. And an ideology to push.

    Like

  87. People choose what they can have success at. If fluoride makes it harder to have success at rugby then people won’t choose rugby.

    I am looking for something else about NZ which changed about the same time as fluoridation was introduced.

    Like

  88. soundhill,

    “I am looking for something else about NZ which changed about the same time as fluoridation was introduced.”

    Since fluoridation was introduced at various times throughout NZ, there are many things that changed:

    Decimalisation
    Proportional representation
    Road speed limits
    Air travel
    Reduction of the rail system
    Loss of steam power on the rail system
    Chlorination
    Immigration
    Road sealing
    CER
    Loss of coastal trading
    Irrigation systems and methods
    Farming exports
    Timber industry
    Mass communication – introduction of TV
    Introduction of traffic lights
    Change in school leaving qualifications

    Is that enough for you to begin with?

    Like

  89. soundhill,

    I should also add decreasing popularity of rugby as a sporting activity, so that less than 5% of the male population now play the game.

    Like

  90. Brian – this is an admission of your two value approach:

    ” I am looking for something else about NZ which changed about the same time as fluoridation was introduced.”

    it is also typical of the ideologically and commercially motivated mind set of the alternative health industry.

    To hell with researching likely factors involved in people’s illnesses – let’s desperately search for something we can use to discredit an effective and safe social health measure like CWF. And let’s sell some snake oil along the way.

    Like

  91. soundhill,

    Given your apophany, did you take into account the reducing popularity of rugby?

    Many people who in previous generations would have played the game now play much more popular sports.

    Have you accounted for the reduced size of the population you imagine that you see an effect in?

    Like

  92. Stuartg: “did you take into account the reducing popularity of rugby?”
    The Auckland region 2013/2014 was said to have 6.7% involvement in playing rugby, though got from a small sample.
    http://www.sportnz.org.nz/assets/Uploads/attachments/managing-sport/research/Sport-and-Active/2013-14-Regional-Profile-Auckland-FINAL.pdf

    Unlike fishing you can’t do it so much as you get older, but 70% are still involved in watching.
    https://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/206/fishing-has-more-kiwis-hooked-than-rugby

    “Have you accounted for the reduced size of the population you imagine that you see an effect in?”
    From my 9:30pm Sept 5 comment:
    relative to Dunedin population:
    ——–———-1936——–1991
    Wellington 1.86 ———3.01
    Christchurch 1.56 ———2.82

    Whereas from my comment 1:10pm Sep 5
    proportion of Ranfurly winning years
    Wellington 27% 11%
    Canterbury 19% 48%

    I am waiting for some data from SportNZ.

    Like

  93. Ken: “Brian – this is an admission of your two value approach:

    ” I am looking for something else about NZ which changed about the same time as fluoridation was introduced.””

    No Ken you talk about fluoride and I want to know how much is good in water.

    If you want to think about other health matters an interesting one would be do the pictures of hockey teams show faces that are more smiley, indicating less traumatic brain injury than rugby / soccer?

    Like

  94. Stuartg: “Loss of coastal trading”

    That’s on topic for this group:

    “Also a result of its fuel efficiency, shipping is responsible for fewer emissions than other transport modes. European Union figures indicate that, on a tonne/kilometre basis, shipping generates roughly 1/8 the carbon emissions of road transport vehicles and 3/5 those of rail. ”

    http://nzsf.org.nz/about-shipping-in-new-zealand

    You give a clear example of something not good which has happened. That is not good in some respects but good for some entities.

    If I ask is loss of coastal trading bad you won’t be able to give a straight yes or no.

    Who disagrees with Winston Peters’ desire to have a bigger port in Northland? Not the phosphate etc road truckers. They want to truck it all from Tauranga. That naughty industry.

    Like

  95. No Brian, I don’t talk about fluoride. iIf I am investigation a phenomenon I wish to look at the role of all possible factors – not assume only one factor like fluiride. That is the difference between an honest approach and confirmation bias.

    Like

  96. soundhill,

    Have you shown that the loss of coastal shipping and trading didn’t result in changes in rugby team results?

    It did occur at the same time, after all, and it’s about as likely a cause as CWF.

    Like

  97. soundhill,

    Is the loss of coastal shipping bad? My answer is yes, no qualification. Does that satisfy you?

    Now you can answer my question: Which is more likely to affect the performance of a rugby team? The current coach, or community water fluoridation twenty years earlier?

    If you are unable to decide which, I am certain that you can give an opinion.

    Like

  98. Stuartg: “Is the loss of coastal shipping bad? My answer is yes, no qualification. Does that satisfy you?”
    Who am I? A road transport operator? Or am I someone who thinks everything needs to be monetised and that capitalism is the highest issue?

    “Now you can answer my question: Which is more likely to affect the performance of a rugby team? The current coach, or community water fluoridation twenty years earlier?”

    I am fighting a similar battle with CCC’s calculation of coastal erosion. Their consultants have measured the rate of movement of the dune toe. A change of dune toe position is not a good enough measure. Their aerial photos started at 1940. Part of the dune had been engineered to advance before that to protect a tram line. So after 1940 it did not appear to be accreting so fast as the part which hadn’t been built up before. Though it is still closer to the sea and containing much sand volume Need to measure starting position as well as changes. Fortunately a review palnel have guided the consultants to look at sand volume. But they could still be in the same trap of just looking at changes.

    Sure a coach can do a lot for an average team but on the outliers of ability other things limit progress.
    .

    Like

  99. soundhill,

    “I am fighting a similar battle with CCC’s calculation…”

    What? The refusal of CCC to answer a simple question?

    For the fifth time: Which is more likely to have an effect on sporting team performance? The current coach, or the tap water the team drank when they were infants?

    Like

  100. “On the outliers of ability other things limit progress.”

    That statement appears to describe my impression that soundhill’s scientific knowledge is at the lower tail of the bell curve.

    Like

  101. Stuartg wrote soundhill1 wrote:“On the outliers of ability other things limit progress.”

    then Stuartg:wrote: “That statement appears to describe my impression that soundhill’s scientific knowledge is at the lower tail of the bell curve.”

    Stuartg has given my “on” a capital letter to make it look as it it were the beginning of my sentence.

    I had written: “Sure a coach can do a lot for an average team but on the outliers of ability other things limit progress”

    Coaches can drive a team harder till they are at their limit. Then what happens? I may have made a mistake about All Black captains from Auckland born after fluoridation. There was Jonah Lomu but he died young of kidney failure/ heart attack.

    At the lower end what can a coach do for a team which has players who do not have coordination to kick or catch a ball?

    Like

  102. soundhill,

    For the sixth time: which is more likely to have an effect on a sports team performance? The current coach? Or the drinking water that the team members consumed as toddlers?

    PS. Before you criticise my capitalisation of the start of a sentence, I would suggest that you seriously contemplate you own grammar. Pot. Kettle.

    Like

  103. Make that “your own grammar”…

    £@&%! spellcheckers kicking in when you think they’re switched off!

    Like

  104. soundhill,

    “At the lower end what can a coach do for a team which has players who do not have (the) coordination to kick or catch a ball?”

    Perhaps you could ask the question to those hundreds or thousands of coaches of primary school sports teams? After all, at one stage even the captains of international sports teams did not have the coordination to kick or catch the ball. They still had a coach.

    Like

  105. soundhill,

    “I may have made a mistake about All Black captains from Auckland born after fluoridation.”

    …But who would ever know? Since you’ve never clearly and precisely stated your beliefs, all anyone else can do is guess what they are and point out the lack of science in your thinking.

    We suspect that you’ve made lots of mistakes, but no-one can help you avoid them if you only give vague hints about your ideas/beliefs.

    Like

  106. soundhill,

    “There was Jonah Long but he died early of kidney failure/heart attack.”

    Just trying to help…

    I suggest that you check up on your beliefs, since they are often wrong. Try the opinion of the All Black doctor for his cause of death instead of your own: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/12011623/Jonah-Lomu-medic-says-All-Blacks-great-probably-suffered-fatal-blood-clot-after-plane-flight.html

    Like

  107. Spellchecker again! Jonah Lomu, not Long!

    How can they be permanently turned off? I trust my own spelling more!

    Like

  108. Mayhew also said Lomu wasn’t taking creatine which his team mate disagrees with.. But anyway if a clot goes to the heart that is a heart attack. And nephrotic symdrome worsens the chance (as it does a build up of fluoride.)
    See the pressure on top rugby players:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/12177904/Jonah-Lomus-former-team-mate-believes-use-of-creatine-may-have-contributed-to-his-death.html

    “no living All Black captains born in fluoridated Auckland”

    Like

  109. See the lack of answer from soundhill to a simple question.

    For the seventh time:

    Which has more effect on the performance of a sports team, the current coach or drinking water consumed when the players were toddlers?

    Like

  110. soundhill,

    Please re-read the article I posted.

    Contrary to your belief that Jonah died of kidney failure/heart attack, the best description there, and elsewhere, is of a “blood clot on the lung” ie a pulmonary embolism.

    If you can’t even get that right, something that most news followers in NZ were aware of, who knows how many “mistakes” you make elsewhere.

    Try using facts and evidence rather than relying on your beliefs; maybe you would be able to answer that simple question rather than evading reality.

    Like

  111. soundhill,

    “If a clot goes to the heart that is a heart attack.”

    Nope.

    A heart attack is (usually) caused by thrombus developing within coronary arteries, although it can actually occur without thrombus formation. No clot movement at all.

    A clot that moves to the heart then passes through the heart and results in embolism – of the lungs, brain, limbs, gut… …but not of the heart.

    Is that simplification sufficient for you to understand?

    Like

  112. “Mayhew told the New Zealand Herald that Lomu’s well-known kidney issues would inevitably have had something to do with his heart stopping.

    “The final mechanism was something caused the heart to go into cardiac arrest, most probably a cardiac or pulmonary event,” he said.”
    19 Nov 2015.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/jonah-lomu-cause-of-death-new-zealand-legend-died-of-a-heart-attack-all-blacks-team-doctor-confirms-a6739091.html

    Like

  113. Stuartg: “Which has more effect on the performance of a sports team, the current coach or drinking water consumed when the players were toddlers?”

    Fluoride can have an epigenetic effect which may even pass on to offspring: http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/442067

    If they had the water when toddlers it is possible their parents were drinking it before conception, too.

    The Zhao et al experiment is using rather larger doses of fluoride but effects are showing very quickly.

    What things may be working together?

    As Ken recently said fluoride alone is not enough for teeth. And reinforcing that: “These two regions have almost similar levels of fluoride in the water but the caries prevalence is markedly different.”
    http://www.portaldeperiodicos.unisul.br/index.php/JR_Dentistry/article/view/3566

    So what working in concert with fluoride protects or harms because of presence or lack? I have tlaked of iodine.

    Now I don’t want to say that near birth times are the only times. And note how Jonah’s team mate said they mixed the creatiine with water.

    Ii don’t think we have got all the knowledge yet.

    I should have the 4-year-olds vision test results before 20 Sept.

    And as regards Jonah, if you have ever looked at angiograms, arteries can get narrower as they traverse the heart if they have plaque in them. So clots could get stuck. Also an arterial spasm can narrow a heart artery.

    Like

  114. No, you haven’t got the knowledge yet, Brian, and you never will with such dishonest citations.

    But an appropriate example for this particular post which is about dishonest citations.

    Like

  115. Not dishonest, Ken. I said the mg/L is greater. That was in two fo teh F groups but they also had an 0.2 mg/L group. I presume the control group was zero.

    Methylation of a gene stops it expressing. Epigenetics happens when a gene has been methylated in a creature and when that creature becomes a parent the methylation can pass on to the offspring.

    “the differential methylation domain in parentally imprinted gene H19 showed low methylation, while materanlly [spelling mistake] imprinted gene IGF2 showed high methylaiton in NaF-treated groups compared to the control group, which corresponded with high expression of H19 and low expression of IGF2 confirmed by qPCR.”

    I read that to say for one thing mothers who have been exposed to fluoride pass on to their offspring reduced ability to produce Insulin-like Growth Factor2.

    Like

  116. In the other article the full text is free. It mentions molybdenum, and selenium but selenium didn’t differ in this study, so I think the mention of selenium in the conclusion is drawn from other work.

    It has several words run together like “in substantial” going to “insubstantial,” but the context makes the mistakes fairly clear.
    Where it says,
    “Also, it is equally
    important to identify those mixtures of micro:
    minerals in foods or water supplies that exert
    acariogenic effect.”
    I think “acariogenic” should be “a cariogenic”.

    Needs a bit more going throgh.

    Like

  117. No, Brian, not 0.2 ppm. The mice were treated with 120 mg/l NaF in drinking water for 48 h. At this concentration the mice would probably have been distinctly unhealthy – maybe some of them died.

    And you deduce from that in a discussion of CWF “Fluoride can have an epigenetic effect which may even pass on to offspring.”

    That is extremely dishonest – but typical of the anti-fluoride propagandist as I mention in my article.

    Like

  118. Soundhill,

    So, you are still not prepared to answer the question! I think that tells us a lot about your beliefs and your lack of scientific integrity.

    All that bullshit about epigenetics…

    And now you’ve decided, without a scrap of evidence to support your beliefs, that some ill defined effect of fluoride may not have occurred in childhood, but may occur at some other time – maybe before birth, maybe after childhood.

    Why don’t you suggest that it occurred before conception? After all, you have exactly as much evidence to support an effect at that time as at any other age.

    I asked: Which has more effect on the performance of a sports team, the current coach or drinking water consumed when the players were toddlers?

    You still haven’t given an answer

    Like

  119. soundhill,

    Why didn’t you complete the quote from the Independent? “Cardiac arrest is the final pathway of the heart shutting down.”

    I suggest that you re-read both the article that I posted and the one that you posted – both say that Jonah died of something other than a heart attack.

    Evidently, my explanation was not sufficiently simple for you.

    Takes a deep breath and reduces explanation level to that needed by a ten year old…

    The last thing that happens when someone dies is their heart stopping. Cardiac arrest. That is not a heart attack. It’s just the heart stopping. The actual cause of death can be something completely different – after all, even with decapitation the last thing that happens is the heart stopping, but cardiac arrest isn’t the cause of death in decapitation.

    “And as regards Jonah, if you have ever looked at angiograms, arteries can get narrower as they traverse the heart if they have plaque in them. So clots could get stuck. Also an arterial spasm can narrow a heart artery.”

    Yes, I’ve looked at angiograms. I’ve even taught about angiograms (both coronary and other arteries). It’s obvious that you don’t know much about them – but you do demonstrate a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in practice.

    As Ken said, “No, you haven’t got the knowledge yet, Brian, and you never will…”

    I tried to simplify things earlier, but here goes, again. I’ll leave you to look up the meanings of the anatomical terms.

    Heart attacks (myocardial infarction, STEMI, non-STEMI, etc) are usually caused by thrombus forming in a coronary artery (the main exception, which I didn’t mention before for simplicity sake, is arterial spasm – eg Prinzmetal). The thrombus forms in the coronary arteries, it doesn’t move there. It’s a thrombus, not an embolism.

    Thrombus that forms elsewhere can move through the heart as an embolus and then form an embolism when it stops moving. A good example of this is deep venous thrombus, formed during long distance travel, which can move from where it formed in the calf or thigh veins, becoming an embolus as it moves, travelling through the heart to the lungs, where it gets stuck and becomes a pulmonary embolism. (This is probably – not certainly – the cause of death of Jonah. A blood clot stopping blood flowing through the lungs – a saddle pulmonary embolism – is a pretty effective way of stopping everything else.)

    An embolus broken off from a venous thrombus cannot move through the heart and form an embolism in the coronary arteries that supply the heart. If such a venous embolus was able to pass the coronary ostia (it can’t without certain heart defects being present), it would find those ostia to be occluded by the leaflets of the open aortic valve. An embolus (possibly the size of a thumb) would also be much too big to pass into the coronary arteries, which are about 2-4 mm in diameter.

    In other words, soundhill, your comment “If a clot goes to the heart that is a heart attack” couldn’t be much more wrong.

    (Whew! Trying to reduce a massively complex and interactive mass of information down to three short, understandable, paragraphs isn’t easy. Unfortunately, it’s not possible without using some medical jargon and bypassing quite a few concepts. I hope this was clear enough.)

    soundhill,

    This time you are trying to imply that, after a few minutes with Doctor Google, you have more experience and knowledge than someone who has spent approximately 100,000 hours in both learning the subject and using that knowledge on a daily basis. It is truly the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

    Like

  120. Thanks Ken, I see it is 0, 20 (low), 60 (medium), 120mg/L (high).
    You must have noticed my saying there must have been a control of zero. I had thought 0, 20 was 0.20.

    And it is sodium fluoride, not just fluoride, so to get the approx weights multiply those figures by 19/(19+23)
    so it’s control 0, low 9, medium 27, high 54mg/L fluoride. So the lower is just over twice what used to be allowed in USA drinking water.

    The blastocyst stage of the mouse embryo, about 4 days, was affected by the low and medium doses, but the high dose affected the 8 cell stage with all 3 levels having onflowing effects.

    Like

  121. Stuartgm several times news article have quoted Mayhew as saying Lomu had a heart attack.

    In the article you referenced Mayhew said, “”I think it was instantaneous. He was unaware of what had happened,” he said.”

    Whereas I thought a pulmonary embolism makes the person feel breathless.

    Like

  122. From the animal treatment description:

    ” ICR mice, 6–8 weeks of age, were randomly divided into 4

    groups for NaF treatment.

    • Group I (NaF-female) consisted of female mice that were mated

    with male mice not given NaF. But only female mice with a

    vaginal plug were given 120 mg/l NaF in water for 48 h

    • Group II (NaF-male) consisted of male mice given 120 mg/l

    NaF in water for 35 days

    • In group III (NaF-male/ NaF-female), female mice were mated

    with NaF-treated mated mice first, and were given NaF for 48

    h after becoming pregnant

    • Group IV (control) consisted of respective male and female

    mice without any NaF treatment.

    Like

  123. “LABORATORY ANIMALS: Chronic Exposure or Carcinogenicity/ Groups of 54 male & 54 weanling female Swiss CD1 mice were given 10 mg/L sodium fluoride in doubly deionized drinking water for life, to give a dose of about 70 ug/day fluorine. An equal number of animals served as matched controls. No fluorine was detected in the diet of the animals. Dead animals were weighed & necropsied, gross lesions were recorded, & visible tumors & tissues were examined histologically. The body weight of males was not affected, but that of females was somewhat increased when compared with the corresponding controls. Males given sodium fluoride survived one to two months longer than controls; the life spans of treated & control female mice were similar.”
    https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+1766

    Ken you say, I calculate, 12 times greater drinking water dose would kill some of the mice.
    Nasty if fluoride has such a narrow window of safety.
    4.5 mg/L does not affect lifespan of female mice.
    9 mg/L is silencing their gene so that less IGF2 is formed and the result affects their offspring similarly. it seems.

    Like

  124. soundhill,

    “Whereas I thought that a pulmonary embolism makes the person feel breathless.”

    Or they can die instantly. Or not be breathless. Or… I suggest that you stick to things that you have formally studied. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

    Even so, this sentence of yours highlights a problem that you have.

    If you had bothered to question your thoughts, as the scientific method requires, you would have found that many of your thoughts, including this one, are full of errors.

    Still, your utterances are a useful example of how someone can make many errors by not following the scientific method.

    And we can always hope that you will study high school science and learn how to think.

    Like

  125. Brian, the charitable new observer might conclude you were on the turps again last night with you confused quoting from alternative sources pretending they were from Zhao et al., (2015). But they would be wrong. You are simply attempting to avoid the dishonesty criticism I have made about using an irrelevant citation to confidently assert in a discussion of CWF “Fluoride can have an epigenetic effect which may even pass on to offspring.”

    My article here is about the dishonest use of citations to impress the naive and to support claims which have no support.

    You are just providing a clear example of that.

    You also provide an example of how your dishonesty extends to use of confusion and further irrelevancies to attempt to justify your dishonest use of citations.

    Like

  126. “Or they can die instantly. Or not be breathless.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000293439090176E
    ” In two athletes, the abrupt lethal complication was “mechanical” and consisted of pulmonary embolism and rupture of the aorta;” ??

    Like

  127. Ken I came home at 9:30pm and was doing the reply to your 6:42pm comment in two comment posts before seeing your 10:26 pm comment.

    I often put the citation/URL after my comment. No pretense. I was not on the turps but were you up later than usual?

    Thanks for your 10:26pm quote from the full article.
    “• In group III (NaF-male/ NaF-female), female mice were mated
    with NaF-treated mated mice first, and were given NaF for 48h after becoming pregnant ”

    Is there a table or something which says the NaF levels for those groups? Since they have not specifiied as for the 120 in the first part of you quote I presume it could have been done for all 3 levels of NaF, from 120 right down to 20mg/L: which is about just over twice what could have been classified as non-fluoridated in Malin and Till.

    I suggest it to be quite easy for water to boil down to half, so double concentration before making infant formula. Especially if the public are told to boil it for a while to deactivate bacteria.

    Now we have the mouse study I think we should wait for a human study.

    Note how descendants of long ocean voyages, mountain treks, like Pacific and American peoples, and others short of food as in the Irish and Scottish potato famines tend to have more diabetes. I presume the thrifty gene involved in their survival is epigenetically inherited. Epigenetics is not rubbish, Stuartg, even though it may bother your beloved Richard Dawkins it is being used by researchers.

    Like

  128. Stuartg: “Why don’t you suggest that it occurred before conception?”

    “Two major waves of genome-wide demethylation and remethylation occur during development: one occurs during germ cell development and the other occurs after fertilization.”

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-013-1122-5/fulltext.html

    Like

  129. This matter which I referred to most recently on Aug 15 now has the complete free article available
    “Despite the study limitations, this is the first gene-environment study investigating the potential impact of COMT single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) on the relationship between children’s cognitive performance and exposure to elemental fluoride.”

    http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/144/2/238.long

    “We recruited 180 schoolchildren (10–12 years old) from high fluoride exposure (1.40 mg/l) and control areas (0.63 mg/l) in Tianjin City, China.”

    Like

  130. soundhill,

    Thanks for confirming my comment about some people with pulmonary embolism dying instantly.

    After all, thats what “abrupt lethal complication” actually means. Dying instantly.

    Didn’t you know that your reference contradicted your own statement?

    Or were you just trying to impress the naive with citations?

    Like

  131. soundhill,

    I would note that you could have found out that fact about pulmonary embolism, along with a lot more, from any textbook of medicine.

    There was no need to search out a quarter century old Italian audit in order to “prove” what every medical graduate is taught and so confirm my comment.

    Like

  132. Stuartg my question marks asked then since Mayhew had changed his statement about heart attack is it because the autopsy had discovered a haemorrhage or what?

    Like

  133. How the chief toxicologist for the office of drinking water in the USA was fired for trying to get the drinking water fluoride level reduced from 4mg/L. It has eventually happened, though.

    http://thewe.cc/weplanet/circus/2013/circus_june_2013-7.html

    One of the organisations also trying was the Natural Resource Defense Council which has also been instrumental in a legal battle hurry the banning of triclosan from soaps.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-bans-common-chemicals-in-antibacterial-soaps/?WT.mc_id=SA_BS_20160909

    Like

  134. Brian – please provide an authoritative link that the 4 mg/L level has been dropped to 2 as recommended.

    I have not seen anything and as far as I know the 4 mg/L limit still stands – probably because a 2 mg/L limit would cause compliance problems in high F areas.

    I stress, I am not referring to the recommended levels for artificially supplemented drinking water – the 4 mg/L applier to natural levels. So please don’t throw back at me the change from 0.7 0- n1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L change in recommended artificial fluoridation, levels.

    Like

  135. https://safewater.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212076577-4-What-are-EPA-s-drinking-water-regulations-for-fluoride-
    “EPA has also set a secondary standard (SMCL) for fluoride at 2.0 mg/L or 2.0 ppm. Secondary standards are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water.”

    So far they are only admitting skin or tooth discoloration, but

    “The Agency finalized the risk and exposure assessments for fluoride in January 2011 and announced its intent to review the drinking water regulations for fluoride to determine whether revisions are appropriate.”

    Like

  136. Yes, Brian, a non-enforceable guideline. But as far as I know there is nothing in effect to insist that natural levels up to 4ppm would prevent such sources being used for drinking water. Presumably because for the cost of enforcement.

    Like

  137. Ken that same convenience thing has happened with glyphosate, applied to GMO crops. But in this case the allowable level has not just been kept the same it has been incredibly increased.

    There is this older link: https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsantos-minions-us-epa-hikes-glyphosate-limits
    (ignore the initial part of the talk preceding Stephanie Seneff which needs to be contradicted).

    More recent talk by Stephanie:

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.pdf

    Since I have been talking about the gut and the trouble with possible interference by fluoride, apparently glyphosate can also inhibit beneficial gut bacteria. So that will be a confounding factor, possibly, in the Malin and Till study. Perhaps higher altitudes use less of it on the crops there.
    More recent talk glyphosate similar to glycine and possibly substituting for it in DNA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snNRfAfSeUk

    Cutting down the population. But I can think of better ways in which the quality of life of the remaining people is better.

    Like

  138. soundhill,

    “Is it because the autopsy discovered a haemorrhage or what?”

    What autopsy?

    That question alone shows that you are relying on your beliefs and fantasies rather than looking for evidence.

    Like

  139. soundhill,

    Have you decided to give an answer to my question yet?

    Which is more likely to affect a sporting team performance… the current coach, or the drinking water that team members had as toddlers?

    Maybe you could tell us what your fantasies are, instead of what the science tells us?

    Like

  140. Stuartg.
    How did Dr Mayhew change his diagnosis of the death as reported in several news article from heart attack to not heart attack a few days later?

    You seemed to agree that haemorrhage of the aorta could result in sudden death from pulmonary embolism. Would that have been found in Johah’s case by some other means than autopsy? Perhaps xray? Some sort of MRI?

    Like

  141. Stuartg: “Which is more likely to affect a sporting team performance… the current coach, or the drinking water that team members had as toddlers?”

    If the current coach is putting demands on the team so they are resorting to ingesting creatine perhaps that would be undoing some of the methylation = gene “unsilencing.”

    That’s just my guess.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17692549

    Like

  142. Stuartg I’m glad you know about Prinzmetal. My neighbour would get sent home from hospital without the diagnosis. “Although Prinzmetal’s angina has been documented in between 2% to 10% of angina patients, it can be overlooked by cardiologists who stop testing protocol after ruling out typical angina. Rarely, an ECG can capture diffuse ST elevations” if you can tolerate anything from Wikipedia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prinzmetal%27s_angina

    Like

  143. soundhill,

    “If…”, “…perhaps…”, “That’s just my guess.”

    Instead of fantasising, why not use reality?

    “You seemed to agree that haemorrhage of the aorta…”

    Since I never mentioned it, that’s entirely your fantasy, yet again.

    Like

  144. soundhill,

    Prinzmetal angina – irrelevant to the discussion. I had to mention it specifically because my earlier “…(usually)…” – for means of simplification – obviously did not reach your higher cognitive functions.

    Other irrelevant things were also included in that “…(usually)…” as well.

    Like

  145. So, soundhill, do you believe that drinking water consumed as a toddler has greater effect on the performance of a sports team than the coach?

    That’s what you seem to imply, purposely avoiding a direct answer and maintaining your vagueness about the subject. I presume that you do so in order that you can never be shown to be wrong and be able to say “that’s not what I meant” in the future.

    I say that because we can see you doing that already:
    First you say you think the effect is in early childhood. It’s pointed out to you that the cherry picked “evidence” you cite doesn’t show the expected delay if that were the case. In fact your cherry picked data contradicts you and would appear to show immediate effect if it isn’t just one of a number of expected coincidences.
    Next you decide, without any evidence at all, that maybe the effect occurs later in childhood, or maybe immediately, or maybe prenatal. You missed out the teenage years…
    Now you think I was being serious about pre-conception and are considering that as well! You don’t even recognise reductio ad absurdum.

    I suggest that you use Occam’s razor instead, after first finding out what it is. That would tell you that there is no effect to be found, that you are seeing coincidence, that you are making a mountain out of a single grain of sand.

    All this in order to try to help clarify your thoughts.

    As I said before, instead of fantasising, why not use reality instead?

    Like

  146. Stuartg: “Or they can die instantly [of pulmonary embolism]. Or not be breathless.”

    Soundhill1 asks indicated by a couple of question marks is this the sort of way you mean?: ***http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000293439090176E
    ” In two athletes, the abrupt lethal complication was “mechanical” and consisted of pulmonary embolism and rupture of the aorta;” ??***

    Stuartg confirms: “Thanks for confirming my comment about some people with pulmonary embolism dying instantly.”

    Out of a lot of cases the few where pulmonary embolism caused sudden death also involved rupture of the aorta. Yes I “confirmed” it for those rupture cases. When Dr Mayhew changed his diagnosis from heart attack to something else then was he now in knowledge of such rupture or what? If so, how, if not autopsy?

    Like

  147. Stuartg, my 10:41 comment was in reply to our interchange:

    Me: “You seemed to agree that haemorrhage of the aorta…”

    You: “Since I never mentioned it, that’s entirely your fantasy, yet again.”

    Now in reply to your 7:54 comment that you think I am being contradictory about when the purported fluoride effect occurs,

    I had written Sep 1, 10:06pm
    “Stuartg from my observation fluoridation seems to strongly oppose being selected as an All Black captain in Auckland if you were born during fluoridation. It also seems to affect sports performance at other times.”

    I shan’t give analogies of things having multiple effects at different times since you tend to avoid acknowledgement by saying it is changing the subject. However readers can imagine them.

    From very early on I gave the South Canterbury effect of no more All Blacks selected from there very close to the fluoridation started. I never claimed the near-birth effect to be the only one, just that for All Black captains in Auckland, which we were discussing, it statistically correlates.

    I have hypothesised one possible mechanism: gene silencing, and asked whether creatine-supplementation by rugby players would be “unsilencing.”

    Like

  148. Stuartg: “Prinzmetal angina – irrelevant to the discussion. I had to mention it specifically because my earlier “…(usually)…” – for means of simplification – obviously did not reach your higher cognitive functions.”

    Though it can get missed by doctors oversimplifying, which you are always wanting to do.

    In this discussion we need to further examine meanings given to the concept of “sudden cardiac death.”
    As for “sudden death” in which of course the heart stops:
    “Sudden natural (unexpected) death is the unpredictable death
    which is not caused by a traumatic event or suicide that occurs
    within 24 h of the onset of symptoms in an apparently healthy
    subject or in one whose disease was not so severe that such an
    abrupt outcome could have been predicted.”
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ji-Gang_Wang3/publication/283538702_Sudden_unexpected_death_from_natural_diseases_Fifteen_years'_experience_with_484_cases_in_Seychelles/links/564ec69b08ae4988a7a64a1d.pdf
    However that does not seem to equal what you cite said Mayhew had said: “”I think it was instantaneous. He was unaware of what had happened,” he said.”

    Like

  149. Stuartg, ” it is difficult to pare away information without risk of throwing out something crucial to the theory. Occam’s razor should be a guide and not a rule.”

    Like

  150. soundhill,

    “Oversimplifying”

    Yes, I decided to omit two or three textbooks of knowledge.

    You obviously didn’t realise that. Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

    Like

  151. soundhill,

    “I think it was instantaneous.”

    Isn’t that a good description of “sudden”?

    Like

  152. soundhill,

    “Oversimplification.”

    I agree, you seem to want to do that.

    Somehow, you think that a few minutes with Dr Google is the equivalent of six or seven years of university learning, which then forms the basis for advanced study.

    Put simply, I’d put my approximately 100,000 hours of learning up against your few minutes on Google any day.

    Like

  153. “I think it was instantaneous.”

    Isn’t that a good description of “sudden”?

    In common language it’s pretty good but technically as I cited:
    “Sudden natural (unexpected) death is the unpredictable death
    which is not caused by a traumatic event or suicide that occurs
    within 24 h of the onset of symptoms in an apparently healthy
    subject or in one whose disease was not so severe that such an
    abrupt outcome could have been predicted.”

    Like

  154. soundhill,

    “I never claimed…”

    No, you never do.

    You’ve never clearly and precisely stated your fantasies/beliefs at all. Just as you’ve never actually supplied reliable data to support them.

    Presumably that’s so you can say “I never claimed…” just as you did then.

    Like

  155. Stuartg: “Somehow, you think that a few minutes with Dr Google is the equivalent of six or seven years of university learning, which then forms the basis for advanced study.

    Put simply, I’d put my approximately 100,000 hours of learning up against your few minutes on Google any day.”

    Many people find it advisable to check google when buying a product, whether medical even.

    Do you accept my point that doctors can be too quick to discharge patients without checking for Prinzmetal? Did the prevalence you taught about agree with Wikipedia?

    Like

  156. “You’ve never clearly and precisely stated your fantasies/beliefs at all. Just as you’ve never actually supplied reliable data to support them.”

    That’s not true. You just don’t think I have since you think the world is simpler than I do, and you believe it can be described simply.

    Like

  157. soundhill,

    Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?

    It’s about the eleventh time I’ve asked, can’t be bothered with counting back.

    Like

  158. Stuartg in my browser #comment-77891 does not point me to anything specific.

    Like

  159. soundhill,

    “You believe it (the world) can be described simply.”

    No, just more simply than your conspiracy-based fantasies would suggest.

    Like

  160. soundhill,

    For about the twelfth time:

    Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?

    Like

  161. “Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?”

    I won’t give any analogy since you tend to pretend they are off topic. But readers can think them up for themselves.

    It depends on the water, the coach and the genetics of the people, and what else they may be ingesting or breathing in, or putting on their skin.

    Like

  162. soundhill,

    How do you conclude I think it’s off topic if I ask the question? For about the twelfth time:

    Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?

    Like

  163. Stuartg: “Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?”

    Which do you think has more effect on the appearance of your teeth? The water you drank 20 years ago or a visit to Steve Slott who say he is good at fixing them? I wonder, in common with some dentists, if he has ever been using uranium to try to give the glowing appearance of natural teeth.

    Like

  164. soundhill,

    Ask Steve, but bear in mind that it was you who brought up the topic of any relationship between CWF as a child and the performance of adult sports teams.

    I’ll only answer that question after you have answered the question I’ve asked about thirteen times:

    Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?

    Like

  165. Stuartg: “Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?”

    I don’t want to answer that question because it gives the impression that improvement is the same as achievement.

    Like

  166. soundhill,

    No, of course not. You don’t want to answer any questions at all.

    Your situation is that if you state something clearly and precisely, such as by actually answering a question, then someone else may show that your fantasies are either right or wrong.

    In either case, the input of reality is likely to result in the destruction of your conspiracy-based fantasy world.

    That would mean that you could no longer sustain your fantasy of exposing those conspiracies to the world at some stage in the future.

    Answering questions, whether right or wrong, risks your being recognised as a crackpot instead. Your ego cannot deal with that possibility.

    Like

  167. soundhill,

    I do realise that you can disprove my impressions by giving a clear answer to my question:

    Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?

    Like

  168. Stuartg: “Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?”
    If you were to ask me does a coach or fluoridated water 20 years previously have more affect on top rugby players then I could answer that the data I have suggests that the water has a strong effect, but I have no data about the effect of coaches to form an opinion, bar when they recommend taking creatine.

    Like

  169. Preliminary Data
    Failure rate of 4-year-old NZ vision screening test 2015-2016 year.
    Now need to estimate % fluoridation and perhaps % Asian and do correlations. Is there a fluoridation correlation?

    % Fail Vision Fail Vision Pass
    1.5% Nelson Marl 22 1448
    2.8% Waikato 138 4793
    3.4% Southern 115 3258
    3.6% Canterbury 198 5278
    3.9% BOP 100 2488
    4.5% Waitemata 317 6784
    4.6% Northland 86 1786
    5.0% Lakes 74 1400
    5.1% Hawkes Bay 101 1876
    5.2% Tairawhiti 35 637
    5.3% All DHBs 2885 51113
    5.4% Whanganui 35 617
    5.6% West Coast 15 251
    6.5% Taranaki 94 1347
    6.6% Auckland 357 5023
    6.9% Cap & Coast 208 2793
    7.0% Wairarapa 33 439
    7.3% Sth Cant 46 581
    8.3% Counties Man 636 7023
    8.5% MidCentral 157 1682
    10.3% Hutt 123 1069

    Like

  170. Just keeping as many “counfounding things” as possible in at the early stage, I am looking for more data on the silica matter. We touched on it on Ken’s diabetes article thread.

    South Canterbury seems fairly high on 4-year-old vision impairment and it water may be fairly low in silica.

    http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Reports/coastal-water-quality-lake-ellesmere-waitaki-river-mouth.pdf

    Like

  171. soundhill,

    Read the question again. I didn’t ask for data because we already know of the coincidences you’ve seen, along with exactly how few coincidences there are and the amount of cherry picking required to separate them from the masses of contradictory data.

    Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?

    Like

  172. Stuartg, So you think that because I noticed the “coincidence” of Christchurch having fewer Spec Savers/optometrists than the fluoridated major centres of NZ that asking MOH for the Before School Check vision test data is “cherry picking”?

    Like

  173. soundhill,

    I’ve cautioned you before that your fantasies about what other people think are not accurate.

    If you really want to know what I think about a topic, then I suggest that you read my comments rather than relying on your imagination.

    Like

  174. soundhill,

    As to your comment about vision:

    Thanks for providing data for Whangarei, Auckland, Hamilton, Rotorua, Invercargill… And for the comparison data on Christchurch for previous years, previous decades… And for providing population breakdowns for all those times and places… And noting the use of fluoride tablets, fluoride salt, etc… And the migration patterns of those places, especially after the earthquakes…

    So, cherry picking?

    Yes, a very good example.

    Like

  175. soundhill,

    I noted that you used figures for DHBs, not for fluoridated/non-fluoridated areas. The figures have no relationship to CWF. That means you’re fantasising about relationships with fluoride yet again

    Very simple question for you about vision, directly related to prevalence of myopia: what is the average time that children in each of those DHBs spend in front of a screen? (TV, computer, tablet, phone…)

    As Ken pointed out, to you everything devolves to fluoride and you cannot conceive that other factors could be involved.

    Like

  176. Stuartg: “I’ve cautioned you before that your fantasies about what other people think are not accurate.”

    So you don’t register the question mark?

    Like

  177. Stuartg I think a bigger factor is the varying proportion of Asians.
    Observations are normally done by getting a notion about a correlation then checking for one, That is not called “cherry picking.” “Cherry picking” is when you only report the observations which support your notion.
    I am waiting for ethnic results to make those observations.
    Another problem is the varying sample size. I don’t think a small sample should be given the same power as one 10 times or more larger?
    You are right about Christchurch with its earthquake showing more change affecting the Canterbury results, which have been reducing since the quakes.
    More often than not there is an increase over the years which may indicate increased watching games and cartoons etc, on small screens close to the eyes.
    Barring mistakes here are results I have calculated from the Before School Vision checks released under OIA by MOH. The district names are after the figures.
    Percent vision check fails
    10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 10-16
    0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 0.8% 1.9% 1.5% 1.0% Nelson Marlborough
    1.3% 1.2% 1.7% 1.4% 1.6% 2.7% 1.7% Waikato
    2.7% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.5% 3.4% 3.5% Southern
    2.7% 3.0% 2.1% 3.4% 4.1% 4.5% 3.5% Waitemata
    2.8% 2.4% 2.9% 3.9% 4.2% 5.4% 3.7% Whanganui
    0.8% 4.1% 3.8% 3.0% 6.1% 5.2% 4.0% Tairawhiti
    4.0% 3.3% 5.1% 4.7% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% Northland
    3.9% 4.1% 4.4% 4.9% 5.0% 3.9% 4.6% BOP
    4.4% 4.8% 4.8% 4.2% 5.0% 5.1% 5.0% Hawkes Bay
    4.6% 5.6% 5.4% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.5% All DHBs
    6.1% 7.3% 6.9% 6.4% 4.1% 3.6% 5.9% Canterbury
    3.9% 4.3% 5.6% 6.0% 6.9% 6.5% 5.9% Taranaki
    5.9% 6.4% 5.8% 5.5% 7.1% 6.6% 6.7% Auckland
    7.3% 6.7% 7.8% 6.3% 5.7% 5.0% 6.9% Lakes
    9.2% 7.7% 8.8% 5.2% 3.4% 5.6% 7.0% West Coast
    6.3% 6.3% 5.7% 7.2% 7.2% 7.1% 7.1% Hutt
    6.0% 9.9% 7.8% 7.2% 5.1% 7.0% 7.7% Wairarapa
    5.4% 8.0% 7.7% 7.9% 6.6% 8.5% 8.0% MidCentral
    5.2% 10.5% 8.2% 7.7% 6.4% 6.9% 8.2% Capital & Coast
    7.9% 8.0% 8.2% 7.1% 7.2% 7.3% 8.2% South Canterbury
    9.7% 11.0% 9.4% 8.5% 7.6% 8.3% 9.9% Counties Manukau

    Like

  178. Stuartg, “cherry picking” would be if, knowing all the above results, I were only to report the comparison between Nelson Marlborough (non-fluoridated), average 1% vision test failure over the years 2010-2016 and Capital and Coast (Fluoridated) 8.2% failure.

    You are confusing cherry picking with not considering so far unchecked confounding variables.

    Like

  179. Stuartg:”I noted that you used figures for DHBs, not for fluoridated/non-fluoridated areas.”
    For the major cities they tend to be mostly unifrom DHBs. But if I can’t get more specific town data I may have to exclude boards like Waikato which range over fluoridated and unfluoridated towns.

    Like

  180. soundhill,

    Boundaries of DHBs have nothing to do with boundaries of CWF.

    You’ve picked this data because you believe it has something to do with CWF. Demonstrably, it doesn’t.

    You didn’t provide associated data that has direct relevance to your beliefs and also contradicts them. So, cherry picking – yes.

    Like

  181. soundhill,

    “I may have to exclude boards which range over fluoridated and unfluoridated towns.” (All of them?)
    – and areas where fluoride tablets are recommended
    – and areas that sell fluoridated salt
    – and areas that sell fluoridated toothpaste
    – and areas where dentists provide fluoride treatment for teeth…

    Since DHB boundaries have nothing to do with fluoridation, neither does data based on DHB boundaries. The only way anyone can’t understand that is if they rely on faith/belief rather than science.

    By the way, have you decided to answer my question yet? This must be about the fifteenth time I’ve asked, yet you continue to evade providing a clear and precise answer.

    Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?

    How about:

    Who will win? A team composed of non-fluoridated team members but no coach, or an equally fit but fluoridated team with a coach? ( Note: that’s a different question which can be answered scientifically; it’s not about your beliefs)

    Like

  182. soundhill,

    Eliminating data of any sort is cherry picking.

    If you don’t include all the data, then any conclusions made from incomplete data are not valid.

    “I may have to exclude…” tells us that you are willing to use incomplete data and your conclusions are therefore invalid.

    Choosing which data to include and which to exclude is cherry picking.

    Like

  183. Stuartg: “If you don’t include all the data, then any conclusions made from incomplete data are not valid.

    “I may have to exclude…” tells us that you are willing to use incomplete data and your conclusions are therefore invalid.

    Choosing which data to include and which to exclude is cherry picking.”

    If Broadbent et al could not ascertain whether a subject lived in F or non-F they just listed that.

    Excluding a section would not make the results for the rest invalid because they would not be included in the vision test fail or pass category.

    “– and areas where fluoride tablets are recommended
    – and areas that sell fluoridated salt
    – and areas that sell fluoridated toothpaste
    – and areas where dentists provide fluoride treatment for teeth…”

    Broadbent did 3 observations, one for water, one for f toothpaste, one for F tablets, and listed them separately.

    Broadbent did not list dietary fluoride, meaning they would not account for the considerable amount of fluoride that tea drinkers get. (With milk in the tea possibly a lot goes to calcium fluoride.) Do you claim that invalidates their results?

    “Since DHB boundaries have nothing to do with fluoridation, neither does data based on DHB boundaries. The only way anyone can’t understand that is if they rely on faith/belief rather than science.”

    Three maps are available. Fluoridation, DHB boundaries, cities. Combining those maps is not faith/belief beyond the ordinary belief in how maps work.

    Like

  184. Stuartg: “Who will win? A team composed of non-fluoridated team members but no coach,”

    You mean a fun game? Certainly they won’t be trying to work at the limits of human ability.

    Like

  185. Stuartg: “Who will win? A team composed of non-fluoridated team members but no coach, or an equally fit but fluoridated team with a coach?”

    You may be trying to get readers to think this way:
    “If the team with the coach does better that indicates that fluoridation in early childhood time has little or no effect.”

    Or you may be trying to say “the effect of a coach may mask/invalidate Brian’s observation.”

    However, statistical analysis is not limited to all or nothing scenarios. It can pick relative sizes of “effects” of various inputs.

    And a further impression your constant repetition seems to be giving is “how could water drunk so many years ago have any effect today?”
    (Even though it does permanently affect teeth!!)

    Please note that dietary inputs in early childhood are found to have enduring effects:

    “overall dietary patterns in early childhood are associated with both later child behaviour, in particular hyperactivity and school performance.

    This suggests that any cognitive/behavioural effects relating to eating
    habits early in childhood may well persist into later childhood,
    despite any subsequent changes (including improvements) to
    dietary intake.”

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kate_Northstone/publication/49817190_Are_dietary_patterns_in_childhood_associated_with_IQ_at_8_years_of_age_A_population-based_cohort_study/links/0deec516194e2dce1c000000.pdf

    Like

  186. soundhill,

    How about: the effects of a coach override just about any other factors in the performance of a team.

    After all, if that wasn’t the case, why would coaches lose their jobs after a series of losses?

    Like

  187. soundhill,

    “Constant repetition”

    You ask lots of questions, presumably you expect them to be answered (if not, why do you ask?)

    I ask you a single question. You decline to answer. Again. And again. And again…

    I presume it’s because answering would demonstrate exactly how far from reality your beliefs actually are.

    Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?

    Like

  188. Stuartg: “Which do you believe is more effective in improving the performance of a sports team, water drunk about 20 years previously, or the current coach?”

    The current coach can improve the performance of a team. Water drunk 20 years ago cannot improve it but may set limits to it.

    Like

  189. soundhill,

    How about answering the question? You are still evading an answer.

    Like

  190. soundhill,

    Mind you, your admission, that water drunk 20 years ago doesn’t have any effects on modern day sporting performance, does accurately reflect the science.

    It may not reflect your beliefs, but it does reflect the science.

    Like

  191. It’s not a fair question because you and I both know that water drunk 20 years ago cannot improve the performance of a team.

    I suggest you rephrase.

    Like

  192. Stuartg: “Mind you, your admission, that water drunk 20 years ago doesn’t have any effects on modern day sporting performance,”

    What I said was it may limit performance. You asked if ti improved it.

    Like

  193. soundhill,

    “What I said was that it may limit performance.”

    Erm…no.

    I suggest that you read what you said:

    “The current coach can improve the performance of a team. Water drunk 20 years ago cannot improve it…” “you and I both know that water drunk 20 years ago cannot improve the performance of a team.”. Two clear statements.

    That’s conclusive then. Water drunk 20 years ago cannot improve the performance of a sports team. No matter the concentration of ions present, water drunk 20 years previously cannot improve the performance of a sports team. It can’t worsen it, either. It has no effect on the performance of the sports team.

    Your clear and precise statement, once you made it, agrees with the evidence.

    Like

  194. Stuartg:”No matter the concentration of ions present, water drunk 20 years previously cannot improve the performance of a sports team. It can’t worsen it, either.”

    Indeed, the performance improvement is affected by what is happening at the present.

    “It has no effect on the performance of the sports team.”
    Now you have left out the word, “improvement,” so the meaning becomes different.

    It has no effect on the improvement but it does have an effect on the performance if they started from a lower level, perhaps because they could not see so well, or some other organs were being challenged.

    A good coach may improve the performance of the team by 5 places. But if they started at the bottom out of 15 teams they aren’t going to be winners.

    Like

  195. Stuartg | September 14, 2016 at 8:38 pm wrote”

    “soundhill,

    “What I said was that it may limit performance.”

    Erm…no.

    I suggest that you read what you said:

    And note I had written it at 1:38pm:
    “The current coach can improve the performance of a team. Water drunk 20 years ago cannot improve it but may set limits to it.”

    Jonah Lomu may have been unblocking those limits with creatine, but it’s tricky isn’t it?

    Like

  196. soundhill,

    “A good coach may improve the performance of the team by 5 places.”

    …or achieve promotion to the Premier League.
    …or win the Superbowl.
    …or win their league then lose in UEFA.
    …or beat Jamaica.
    …or lose the Rugby World Cup…

    I suspect that “5 places” can be far exceeded, both up and down, but know of no evidence to support even your conservative comment. And I can’t be bothered looking. After all, how do we measure the capability of a coach other than by their team performance record?

    As an intellectual exercise, consider what would happen if Celtic’s coach left and went to Groomsport. I would expect more than 5 place improvement in Groomsport’s position; but that’s opinion, not science.

    Like

  197. Stuartg, coaches these days improve their team by importing players. Anyone from Hamilton proud their rugby team the Chiefs has risen to the top in NZ? But I don’t think any of the 39 players in its pool were born there. Can’t be quite sure but it looks like 14 were born in fluoridated places, 15 in non-fluoridated, and 10 which I am not sure about including 4 from Tonga which is probably not fluoridated, and one from Edendale, probably not, and I don’t know about the Pulu boys, Eliot, Leitch and Cane.

    Like

  198. soundhill,

    Why are you harping on about fluoridation? You’ve now introduced CWF at a sportspersons birthplace. Why?

    You’ve (eventually) told us that early childhood drinking water, along with whatever ions are present therein, has no effect on the performance of adult sports teams.

    You’ve told us that you no longer believe the effect is (solely?) in infancy, but believe it to occur instantaneously in adulthood, or maybe later in childhood, or maybe prenatal, or perhaps even pre-conception. You missed out believing in an effect during teenage years. Now it seems that CWF at a person’s birthplace is significant. Talk about moving goalposts!

    You’ve never produced evidence to support your beliefs, just occasional coincidences that don’t stand up to appraisal. When investigated, your beliefs are shown to be fictitious, just like phlogiston.

    OK, we can accept that you don’t accept the reality that science shows us. We can accept that you have religious beliefs about fluoride that, like other religions, have no supporting evidence.

    But, just like the religious barmpots that appear regularly at our doorways, the longer you keep on about your beliefs, the more imaginary and illusory you demonstrate them to be.

    Like

  199. soundhill,

    “I don’t think…” “Can’t be quite sure…” “it looks like…” “I am not sure about including…” “…probably not…” “I don’t know…” – all from one paragraph.

    Wow, what an incredible, presumably inadvertent, example of how someone can believe they are being scientific yet completely miss the concept!

    And you believe that is evidence?

    Like

  200. Stuartg: “You’ve (eventually) told us that early childhood drinking water, along with whatever ions are present therein, has no effect on the performance of adult sports teams.”

    No, Stuartg, and you know I have already pulled you up on that. Repetition of lies works as most propagandists are taught.

    And I asked you to rephrase your question. That way you have asked it would conflate “improvement” with “achievement.”

    You try to get me to look silly by answering a question yes or no which is about whether water drunk 20 years ago can improve the performance of a sports team, compared to a coach.

    The coach improves the team now. (whether by advsing creatine at risk to players, importing new players, and perhaps being a driver)

    That is a different sort of improve from whether they have avoided needing spectacles when they were young.

    You are conflating “improve” as actual improvement of a team with “improve” as correlated to and whether there will be differences in ranking based on that.

    Yes I think the performance of a rugby team is correlated to the water its players drank 20 years ago near their birth time. It is also correlated to the current coach.

    You question should have been, “Which do you believe to be more correlated to the current achievement of a rugby team, the current coach or water they drank 20 years ago?”

    As to the question of whether one effect has a greater correlation than the other, I think that they interact in a partnership in which both need to be optimum. What have you with only one of the partners in a relationship? Just memories of what was/ what might have been.

    I can’t help remarking about the UN film I posted on the other thread which dresses up lots of death as a positive story of success for ebola survivors, rather than addressing how to do what Nigeria did, so becoming ebola-free before USA, as Scientific American said.

    Like

  201. Stuartg: “You’ve told us that you no longer believe the effect is (solely?) in infancy,”

    I never proclaimed belief it to be solely in infancy. For All Black captains I talk about a correlation pretty much zero of being born in a fluoridated area.

    Yes I talked about possible causes, like the large amount of water per body weight that infants may drink, therefore the larger amount of fluoride per body weight that they get. Our MOH reports that parents in the USA may use alternative non-fluoridated water to avoid dental fluorosis in their children. As I have reported then the ameloblasts will not be switched off so the diffuse white imperfection in the tooth enamel will not be caused.

    I have more recently talked about gene silencing and reported research of effects in the germ cells before conception, yes.

    Stuartg: “but believe it to occur instantaneously in adulthood,”

    I think you are bending that word “instantaneously” the way the North Americans bend “momentarily.”

    The way you write it many people would think it means, “the instant adulthood occurred,” which is pretty funny.

    “or maybe later in childhood,”

    Perhaps like a child with a genetic susceptibilty to a disease may avoid it if the environment is OK. Richie Poulton of the Dunedin Study talked about that with the COMT gene variants.

    “or maybe prenatal, or perhaps even pre-conception.” yes.

    “You missed out believing in an effect during teenage years.”

    It’s observations not beliefs. So far I have not observed an effect on the teenage years specially, though I have pointed out how around the time of fluoridation in Timaru where the South Canterbury rugby team is based, that they no longer sent on players to the NZ team the All Blacks, having sent on many before that.

    “Now it seems that CWF at a person’s birthplace is significant. Talk about moving goalposts!”

    If CWF exists at a birth place then isn’t it more likely that it will be affecting sensitive rapid developmental processes in some proportion of the population? This is a statistical effect. Individual people, a few individual tosses of the coin, could come up all heads or or tails. It takes larger group analysis.

    With eyesight/myopia/fluoridation, if I give a very rough figure of 1 for a DHB most fluoridated like Auckland/Wellington ones, 0 for Canterbury, and variously in between 0 and 1 for Waikato, maybe Taranaki, Tairawhiti, really guessing, I get a correlation of a bit more than 0.25 for fluoridation and failing the B4S vision test. When I eventually do the individual ethnic correlations then the whole story will be more worth considering. The higher population areas tend to have rather more Asians. Genetic or just greater use of Ipads etc by youngsters? MOH could give me the town of birth, and I may get that and link it to the Water Information NZ fluoridation map.

    Like

  202. OK, soundhill,

    Lots of questions, most acknowledging that you have zero evidence to support them. Lots contradicting your previous comments.

    Tell us , precisely and accurately, what your belief is about fluoridation and sports team performance.

    Until you do that, how can anybody investigate it?

    Like

  203. Stuartg you ask about beliefs so much it must mean you have them. I just go by observation and notions.

    Like

  204. soundhill,

    “instantaneously” – as you believe that sports team performance deteriorates the moment that CWF starts. You’ve stated that, as opposed to the 20 year or so delay that would be expected if the effect occurred in childhood (I’ve pointed that out before).

    Tell us if the effect occurs before conception, before birth, as toddlers, in childhood, or as professional sports team members, all of which you have implied but not definitely stated.

    Surely there must be some actual evidence for you to produce to support your religious beliefs?

    Like

  205. soundhill,

    As I’ve said before, I follow the evidence.

    You, in contrast, have religious beliefs that are opposed by reality.

    Like

  206. soundhill,

    “you ask about beliefs so much it must mean you have them.”

    No. I observe someone that doesn’t acknowledge reality and recognise that they have religious beliefs that don’t see the real world for what it is.

    Like

  207. soundhill,

    “I just go by observation and notions.”

    So, you don’t follow evidence, then?

    Like

  208. soundhill,

    Faith (belief) is never having to acknowledge that you are wrong…

    Like

  209. Stuartg:”“I just go by observation and notions.”

    So, you don’t follow evidence, then?”

    Evidence cannot prove any theory. But it can prove it wrong.

    I think you are too caught in experimental evidence where you set out with a control group and an experimental group, vary the experimental variables away from the control and see if you have changed the outcomes in accordance with your hypothesis.

    As in epidemiology that often cannot be done, (or is not ethical to do – have you heard the syphilis story and I wonder about the ebola story I related on the other thread?) But observational science can be done. Working with observations, getting notions, forming hypotheses, checking correlations may help even if you don’t have the “experimental evidence” of controlling the experimental variables.

    On this thread and recent ones I have even suggested mechanisms. But rather than examine whether the epidemiology could shed light on mechanisms, all you do is say observational science is no good.

    Good detectives have to work by observation. If they set up a controlled experiment to gain scientific evidence that may be intellectually satisfying but the thief will be well gone. Of course they may use “scientific” techniques to gain observations, such a finger prints.

    So much “science” is just observational. As well as epidemiology where it may not be ethical to expose people to a virus to prove it is a cause of death there is earthquake science where you note what happened to various kinds of buildings and gain more info than computer modelling or shaking structures in a laboratory. Or whale strandings, records of which the Smithsonian Institution keep.

    Snow’s observations reduced the cholera epidemic in London. “Despite the success of Snow’s theory in stemming the cholera epidemic in Soho, public officials still thought his hypothesis was nonsense. They refused to do anything to clean up the cesspools and sewers. The Board of Health issued a report that said, “we see no reason to adopt this belief” and shrugged off Snow’s evidence as mere “suggestions.””

    http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowcricketarticle.html

    Like

  210. I wrote: “you ask about beliefs so much it must mean you have them.”

    Stuartg replied: “No. I observe someone that doesn’t acknowledge reality and recognise that they have religious beliefs that don’t see the real world for what it is.”

    Wink wink much like the London officials calling Snow’s cholera hypothesis a “belief.”

    Like

  211. Stuartg: “Faith (belief) is never having to acknowledge that you are wrong…”

    Observational science should not stop after a hypothesis works or doesn’t.

    And when a hypothesis fails of course the observer is not wrong because they were allowing its failure as an outcome.

    In a sales scenario, however, which I have a hunch you are in, it matters if you get a result which does not reinforce your hypothesis. The “scientist” can become identified with their hypothesis and fail to publish negative results. The study of that process has been referred to on this group. “Publication bias.”

    One suggestion to outwit that is for all experiments to be registered. So I have registered here my interest in doing fluoridation/myopia observations. MOH cannot give out any info that would identify kids or families. It will be interesting to see if they are prepared to release city of domicile as well as ethnicity.

    Like

  212. soundhill,

    Your observations have been shown to be coincidence. You are correct that science has not proven them – but you ignore the vast amount of science that, by demonstrating the coincidence, disproves them.

    Coincidences happen. Especially when someone like yourself discards most of the data and cherry picks among the rest to support their belief.

    “And when the hypothesis fails of course the observer is not wrong because they were allowing it’s failure as an outcome.”

    When did you ever consider that your beliefs about fluoride could be wrong? Even after being repeatedly shown how to show demonstrate those beliefs were wrong? Faith/belief is what is left when, after being proven wrong, a person refuses to acknowledge their error.

    soundhill, your beliefs never even reached the level of hypothesis. You wanted science to prove you correct, in contradiction to your own statement that “Evidence cannot prove any theory. But it can prove it wrong.”

    The scientific method teaches us to try to prove our ideas wrong. Since you don’t follow the scientific method, you never tried to disprove your beliefs. Even when your beliefs have been disproven, you still think they are correct but not yet proven.

    “Even if I stumble on to the absolute truth of any aspect of the universe, I will not realise my luck and will spend my life trying to find flaws in this understanding – such is the role of the scientist” – Brian Schmidt.

    Like

  213. soundhill,

    “So I have registered here my interest in doing fluoridation/myopia observations.”

    No need to do wait for other people to do the research – just go out in the field and do the research yourself.

    Don’t forget to publish your negative findings in a respected, peer reviewed journal.

    Like

  214. soundhill,

    Just to help you with that:

    The null hypothesis, that you will be seeking to disprove, is that Community Water Fluoridation has no effect on children’s eyesight.

    Don’t forget to include sufficient subjects so that your research will have sufficient power.

    Don’t forget to allow for complicating factors:
    – reading habits
    – use of screens
    – use of fluoride tablets
    – use of fluoride treatment
    – use of fluoridated salt
    – time spent outside versus inside
    – racial factors
    – educational factors
    – degree of deprivation
    – home schooling versus schools
    – school deciles…

    I suspect that you will still need more than the entire population of the country to disprove the null hypothesis, but that’s science for you!

    Like

  215. Stuartg: “When did you ever consider that your beliefs about fluoride could be wrong?”
    I suppose I “believed” claims that fluoride urinary excretion is more related to intake than it actually is. It seems now that the kidneys can only excrete a certain amount of dietary fluoride. So the fraction excreted decreases as intake goes up.

    People “believe” they are OK when losing kidney function because they do not notice the effect and go to the doctor till about 90% is gone. I suppose you could call that a belief. Something I read somewhere. That kidneys have plenty of over capacity.

    Call it “belief” that it may be tough on the kidney working at maximum capacity for fluoride excretion? I am ready to be proved wrong. It’s just a notion.

    See the last comment here, and I mentioned you: https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/misrepresenting-fluoride-science-an-open-letter-to-paul-connett/#comment-78041

    Like

  216. Stuartg: “Don’t forget to publish your negative findings in a respected, peer reviewed journal.”

    That does not guarantee its immunity from commercial attack.

    Besides Stuartg Monsanto has a whole discrediting department with all guns blazing. They don’t take very good aim but they are getting collateral damage such as when they got a worker on to the board of FCT (and he is now got rid of) to discredit a scientific paper.

    “Recently, I attended a talk by Monsanto’s Dr. William “Bill” Moar who presented the latest project in their product pipeline dealing with RNA. Most notably, he also spoke about Monsanto’s efforts to educate citizens about the scientific certainty of the safety of their genetically engineered products. The audience was mostly agricultural students many of whom were perhaps hoping for the only well-paid internships and jobs in their field.

    One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs. As far as I know this is the first time that a Monsanto functionary has publically admitted that they have such an entity which brings their immense political and financial weight to bear on scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit Bureau will not be found on their official website”
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/27/1373484/-Monsanto-s-Discredit-Bureau-Swings-into-Action#

    Monsanto’s share price has risen a little in response to Bayer’s take over, but is still about 10% below a year ago. And Bayer’s share price has dropped
    23% over the year. Farmers must be turning away.

    Like

  217. Stuartg: “Don’t forget to allow for complicating factors:”

    Then what comment do you have about the Broadbent et al study which did not include dietary fluoride?

    Like

  218. Actually, I could have worded that last sentence a little more clearly:

    I suspect that you could survey the entire population of New Zealand and still not be able to disprove the null hypothesis.

    Like

  219. soundhill,

    “Then what comment do you have about the Broadbent et al study that did not include dietary fluoride?”

    None.

    They didn’t report on many other things: car ownership, overseas travel, footwear worn, apples and oranges consumed… I’m not commenting about them not including those, either. Neither do you, you criticise them solely for not investigating your particular hobby-horse, fluoride.

    Here’s your opportunity to do the research that you think they should have done instead of what they did do. Don’t forget to publish your negative results in a respected, peer reviewed journal.

    Like

  220. “I suspect that you could survey the entire population of New Zealand and still not be able to disprove the null hypothesis.”

    You suspect or believe?

    And there is never proof. There is only probability.

    Like

  221. soundhill,

    I’ve answered that question from you at least twice before. I would refer you back to my previous answers.

    Unlike you, I try to be clear and precise with my wording.

    Like

  222. soundhill,

    “Besides Stuartg Monsanto has a whole…”

    I can’t help what you believe. I challenge you to justify that comment. Show us anywhere that I have ever commented about Monsanto.

    I have told you multiple times not to make assumptions or wild ass guesses about my thoughts.

    Unlike you, I do not attribute other commenters thoughts that they have never expressed. Unlike you, I have no religious faith/belief in disproven ideas. Unlike you, I do not use vague implications and believe that they are crystal clear refutation of decades of well developed science. Unlike you, I do not seek to impress the naive with completely irrelevant citations.

    Like

  223. soundhill,

    “And there is never proof. There is only probability.”

    But you yourself said:
    “Evidence cannot prove any theory. But it can prove it wrong.”

    And your vaguely specified and unclear beliefs about fluoride have been proven wrong.

    Like

  224. I wrote: “Then what comment do you have about the Broadbent et al study that did not include dietary fluoride?”

    Stuartg wrote: None.

    They didn’t report on many other things: car ownership, overseas travel, footwear worn, apples and oranges consumed… I’m not commenting about them not including those, either. Neither do you, you criticise them solely for not investigating your particular hobby-horse, fluoride.”

    Fluoride is one hobby horse of this group.

    And indeed in their paper Broadbent et al remark:

    “Strengths and Limitations
    This study has numerous strengths, including
    the robust IQ measures used, the presence of
    prospective data on use of fluoride tablets and
    fluoridated toothpaste, and the ability to link
    each child’s address with historical administrative
    records of CWF. A limitation is that we did not
    ask how much water study members drank. Individual
    water-intake level was not directly measured,
    meaning that the CWF exposure variable
    is an ecological one. Other sources of fluoride are
    also important in assessment of total intake.”

    I humbly suggest, Stuartg you are attempting to obfuscate by talking about those other things.

    Like

  225. Stuartg: “Unlike you, I do not attribute other commenters thoughts that they have never expressed.”

    I think most people understand that when I say, “So you mean…?” that I feel that what you have said could imply the think I put the question mark after, and you need to explain. You need to say you do not think it implies it, and say why.

    People must think you are pretty funny not in vogue with a normal mode of intercourse.

    Like

  226. Stuartg wroteL “But you yourself said:”
    I had written. “Evidence cannot prove any theory. But it can prove it wrong.”

    Say I have a hypothesis that every coin flip I do will turn up heads. I could get as far as 10 heads and still not “prove” it. (By this time observers will think I have a double headed coin.) But even one tail would disprove it.

    That can work in some circumstances. Not every time. But the lack of proof is always present, only a probability exists.

    My study will not be so simple as disproving my hypothesis by finding one child who passes the vision test in a fluoridated area.

    Like

  227. Stuartg: “Unlike you, I do not seek to impress the naive with completely irrelevant citations.”

    You hope they believe you. But it must be scaring to you that increasing numbers of people are starting to think for themselves. They are seeing through the thinly disguised sales facade. Ken seems to call their new found distrust, “hubris.”

    “Science” is in a mess.
    “Epidemiologists have always been vigilant about the danger of claiming associations that do not exist in reality by adopting the null/alternative hypothesis approach, which emphasizes lower tolerance for such error (i.e. type I error) than for missing a real link (i.e. type II error).33 It is an approach similar to the judicial system, which considers convicting an innocent a greater mistake than letting a criminal go free. This approach emphasizes as well the need for research to be driven at the outset by a sound and fully articulated hypothesis. The wisdom of this safeguard seems to be lost on many researchers nowadays, who like to formulate and interpret their studies by what comes out of the logistic regression grinder. Given researchers’ ingeniousness in explaining exotic associations, and the ever-expanding volume of knowledge, it is not hard to find biological explanations for contradictory findings. For example, studies showing positive associations between exposure to pets and childhood asthma attribute this association to animal allergens (compatible with the allergy paradigm), while studies showing negative associations attribute it to pet-related microbial products (compatible with the hygiene paradigm).34,35 There are ample examples of tailor-made post hoc hypotheses, transforming epidemiology from a rational to a ridiculous endeavour, and highlighting the growing importance of epidemiological studies being guided by well-grounded a priori hypotheses.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2734074/

    So he is discrediting the sort of exploratory statistics which Ken likes.

    I wonder how he is going to get on with a GPS-guided journey aided by computers which can find routes he could not have hypothesised.

    Nowhere does he mention “exploratory” research. He admits researchers are doing that by writing null hypotheses after seeing their statistics. It ought to be “legalised,” but with proper statistical cautioning. And that cautioning that should indeed be being done about the “pre-experiment-hypothesis” approach, too. It’s so funny p=0.05 and you have disproved the null hypothesis. p=0.06 and you have to forget it, waste it.

    Like

  228. soundhill,

    Good confirmation.

    I rest my case…

    Like

  229. Stuartg, the language of shaming that you and David Fierstien often use could connect you to the story in this short film:

    Like

  230. soundhill,

    Not evidence, not proof, irrelevant, attributing thoughts and attitudes to people that exist only in your mind…

    Just because someone points out that you live in a fantasy world of conspiracies is no reason to include them in your fantasies.

    I’ll stay firmly fixed in the world of reality.

    Like

  231. soundhill,

    Check the video.

    If the person doesn’t use schwa, they are reading from a text, so why not publish so their text can be read and evaluated properly.

    If they use schwa, why didn’t they compose a text that could be published and properly evaluated.

    In other words, videos are not citations.

    Like

  232. Stuartg there’s a bit more about it here:
    http://www.naturalnews.com/055340_false_flag_terrorism_bombings_political_class.html
    Somehow I think it is going to be difficult for a paper to be peer reviewed if it be discussing “shaming” to suppress dissidence to your sales science agenda.

    “Gung Ho,” if I might play on words a bit:

    That is a term which has come to mean very enthusiastic if rather amateurish approach to doing projects.
    An “amateur” does something for the love of it not the money.

    “Gung Ho” was the title of a book written by Rewi Alley about getting construction and societal improvement going in a Chinese village(s).
    It really means “working together,” I think.

    Now my play on words is that the science you worship, Stuartg is not “working together,” enough. And I am thinking of it in terms of how forces work together to impinge, whereas “science” wants to isolate them one by one.

    So “science” may find the herbicide glyphosate by itself to be not too bad on humans. And it may find surfactants by themselves to be not too bad. But does it look at them working together where the surfactant allows the glyphosate to penetrate cell walls with a rather different result? Things “working together” should have been investigated by EPA before allowing increased use of Roundup (glyphosate + surfactants) to be used on GMO crops and to dessicate crops (hurry along drying.)

    From the Lin FF study I related how they look at “interaction” of low iodine with moderate fluoride, but had trouble getting that across. Ken couldn’t accept that part of their discourse.

    And now as we get through 2016 we have this about increase of chronic kidney disease:

    “Available data do not support any of the postulated agents, chemicals, heavy metals, fluoride, salinity/ionicity, or individual agrochemical components, such as phosphate or glyphosate, as causative factors for CKDmfo in Sri Lanka. However, as the CKDmfo name implies, a combination of these factors (or an unknown toxin) together with harmful behaviour and chronic dehydration may cause this disease.”

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10653-015-9768-y

    Like

  233. Here is something Glenn Greenwald has got hold of about government planning means to disinform the populace. I think this overlaps between “science” and also the political propaganda being discussed on other threads on this group.
    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1021430/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf

    Like

  234. soundhill,

    “your sales science agenda”

    Again, vague implications, attributing something to me that exists only in your fantasies…

    Stand back and look at what you are doing. You are attempting to criticise what you label as “science” by using… science?

    If you are so critical of science and the scientific method, why are you making such feeble attempts to use science yourself?

    Like

  235. soundhill,

    Perhaps, rather than relying on a geochemistry journal to look at 1960s health in Sri Lanka, you could look at some medical texts and find that the major cause of CKD in Sri Lanka is diabetes?

    Or maybe youre just helping Ken by illustrating his contention that anti-fluoridationists attempt to impress the naïve by using irrelevant citations that they don’t understand?

    Like

  236. soundhill,

    Your critiques of science would be more effective if you first learned what the scientific method actually is and then learned how to use it.

    I suggest that attending high school classes on the subject would be a good place to begin.

    Like

  237. “Your critiques of science would be more effective if you first learned what the scientific method actually is and then learned how to use it.”

    And then how to expose researchers who do a short study when the effects turn up after that. Researchers who do not publish their negative or positive results, which ever doesn’t suit their agenda. Commentators who obfuscate, which anthropomorphic global warming deniers from the oil companies have admitted, all the while seeking to ridicule science voices who do not have the money to get their message through the media so much. The emotive language you have used about me, so characteristic of propagandists and uncharacteristic of sincere scientists. It gets magnified as they fail to answer the science and take part in investigation.

    Like

  238. Stuartg, a bit confused, or maybe trying to confuse others?:

    “Perhaps, rather than relying on a geochemistry journal to look at 1960s health in Sri Lanka, you could look at some medical texts and find that the major cause of CKD in Sri Lanka is diabetes?”

    1. It is not a “geochemistry journal looking at 1960s health.”

    It is a journal dedicated to looking at the health effects of geochemistry. And it is looking in 2016 at a process which started in 1960s: increase of chronic kidney disease.

    2. “you could look at some medical texts and find that the major cause of CKD in Sri Lanka is diabetes?”

    You say “The major cause” is diabetes. All that means it is bigger than the other causes. The article names what it is looking at, “chronic kidney disease of multifactorial origin.” Stuartg you seem to be making the same mistake here that you appeared to make about Prinzmetal’s angina. At least you did not acknowledge when I pointed out a claim it could be up to 10% of cases. Now you seem to be suggesting it to be not worth considering anything else but a single cause of kidney disease: diabetes.

    You miss my point: multifactoriality, too.

    If diabetes be a factor it in turn may be related to geochemistry: shortage of trivalent chromium and zinc getting into the food from the environment. Though perhaps geochemistry combined with the use of superphosphate which can bind soil minerals and make them unavailable to plants.

    3. “Or maybe youre just helping Ken by illustrating his contention that anti-fluoridationists attempt to impress the naïve by using irrelevant citations that they don’t understand?” No I hope they can gain a glimpse of multifactoriality. Yes it is a bit of a new topic to some perhaps. I think it requires a deeper look at statistics. When variables interact, maybe use up or disable one another, then the ordinary multiple regression be not working.

    Like

  239. soundhill,

    I would seriously advise you to look at one of the best followers of the scientific method that I am aware of. The late Mick Aston.

    Watch each of the more than two hundred episodes of Time Team. Not all of them has Mick as the scientific advisor, but on all of them you will see changes in hypotheses as new evidence is available, along with dropping of hypotheses that have been disproven by evidence.

    Unfortunately, you don’t change your hypothesis as evidence changes. It demonstrates that you are not following the scientific method.

    Watch Time Team. Observe how the scientific method works. Try it for yourself – a new prospect, I know. You may learn something that would add to the high school course in science that I advised.

    Scientists, such as myself and Ken, know about multifactorial effects. That’s why we try to isolate each of those effects and analyse the effects individually. You think that multifactorial effects cannot be separated and can’t be isolated. Unfortunately for you, science has proven you wrong and individual effects can indeed be isolated and evaluated individually.

    As a good example, CWF to recommend levels reduces the amount of tooth decay, but has no otherwise adverse effects that have ever been documented over the decades and generations for which the intervention has occurred.

    I really do suggest that you learn about the scientific method instead of relying on pseudoscience and fantasy.

    Like

  240. soundhill,

    I made no mistake in mentioning Prinzmetal angina. I’ve known about it for over thirty years.

    Did you even know of it’s existence before I mentioned it?

    Like

  241. soundhill,

    You referred to an opinion piece in a geochemistry journal with low impact rating.

    Did you read the paper with its 34.95 Euro charge, or just read the abstract?

    The paper doesn’t say what you think it says.

    Recent medical textbooks (Oxford, Harrison’s…) will give you much better, more science based results that will point you to the causes of increased CKD in Sri Lanka.

    Like

  242. Stuartg: “Scientists, such as myself and Ken, know about multifactorial effects. That’s why we try to isolate each of those effects and analyse the effects individually. You think that multifactorial effects cannot be separated and can’t be isolated`”

    I am glad you are not a builder working with concrete or a dentist mixing composite fillings or amalgams.

    Like

  243. Stuartg: “I made no mistake in mentioning Prinzmetal angina. I’ve known about it for over thirty years.

    Did you even know of it’s existence before I mentioned it?”

    I called it arterial spasm: my neighbour had been sent home without the diagnosis, and the wikipedia article says that happens, because the doctors only bother to rule out “angina.”

    You gave it a name, but seemed to be minimising its prevalence, unless I misread you.

    Your mistake is not admitting its prevalance.

    I didn’t know the name, but I knew the condition.

    Like

  244. Stuartg: “You referred to an opinion piece in a geochemistry journal with low impact rating. ”

    Please be careful:

    About “impact factor”:
    “Brace for impact

    Heidi Siegel, a spokesperson for London-based business-analytics firm Thomson Reuters, the major publisher of the JIF, says that the measure is a broad-brush indicator of a journal’s output — and should not be used as a proxy for the quality of any single paper or its authors. “We believe it is important to have a measure of the impact of the journal as a whole, and this is what the JIF does,” says Siegel.

    But many scientists, funders and journals do not use it that way, notes Stephen Curry, a structural biologist at Imperial College London who is lead author on the bioRxiv preprint paper. Many researchers evaluate papers by the impact factor of the journals in which they appear, he worries, and impact factor can also influence decisions made by university hiring committees and funding agencies.”

    http://www.nature.com/news/beat-it-impact-factor-publishing-elite-turns-against-controversial-metric-1.20224

    But anyway it;s so called impact factor is 16th out of 43 starting with “environment” in 2014; its impact factor has been rising.
    http://www.citefactor.org/journal-impact-factor-list-2014_E.html.

    It is a June 2016 review article hypothesising multifactoriality should be investigated. Please don’t sideline CKD sufferers as only diabetic. (And then probably say their only problem is not getting the right amount of drug.)

    Like

  245. And ranking the journal, “Environmental Geochemistry and Health” against all the others starting with “E” it gets 153 out of 486, way above average.

    I wrote: “Please don’t sideline CKD sufferers as only diabetic.”

    “Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing problem in Sri Lanka. Diabetes and hypertension are the main contributors to the disease burden. A new form of CKD of uncertain etiology (CKD-u) is the predominant form of CKD in certain parts of Sri Lanka, threatening to reach epidemic proportions.”
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51804392_Epidemiology_of_chronic_kidney_disease_in_a_Sri_Lankan_population_Experience_of_a_tertiary_care_center

    Sorry only abstract again, but:

    “The most common underlying causes of CKD were diabetes (88, 44%) and hypertension (34, 17%). However, in patients younger than 40 years of age the most common cause was glomerulonephritis (20, 42.6%). Diabetes was the most common cause of CKD among patients from the western province (74, 54%). The prevalence of CKD-u was twice as high in patients from areas outside the western province compared with patients from this province (P > 0.05). The low prevalence of CKD-u in the study population could be the result of poor representation of patients from provinces with high prevalence of CKD-u.”

    So please pay attention to the possibility of multifactoriality as Sunil J. Wimalawansa’s article suggests.

    Like

  246. soundhill,

    OK, so you debate the impact factor of the journal, but not the fact that it is an opinion piece about 1960s health in Sri Lanka published in a geochemistry journal with limited access.

    As I suggested, perhaps you could instead read medical texts that would give you a more up to date view of CKD in the country?

    “Angina” – a symptom, not a diagnosis. Prinzmetal is one cause, so is IHD, so is abnormal rate control, so is cardiomyopathy, so is… If you do not have access to someone’s medical records, then you only have what they tell you – complete with errors of understanding, poor recollection, and the limitations of that person’s education.

    And never forget that the same things apply to yourself and your understanding, especially, as we have found, the lack of education.

    Like

  247. Stuartg: “OK, so you debate the impact factor of the journal, but not the fact that it is an opinion piece”

    I said it is a review article with one hypothesis that multi-factors working together ought to looked at explain the high rate of chronic kidney disease since 1960, whcih is in younger people and not the result of diabetes.

    “about 1960s health in Sri Lanka”

    rather about health since 1960s to the present

    “published in a geochemistry journal”

    Not a geochemistry journal. That would be about the chemistry of the earth, say parallel to geophysics where you would be studying the earth’s physics as opposed to its chemistry. This journal runs article on the chemicals of the enivironment and the earth and how they affect people’s health.

    “with limited access.”

    Journals that are free to read may be paid for by the scientist or their organisation who wants data out. So some people say they are less trustworthy. Environmental Geochemistry and Health is the type of journal like very many that you or your organisation, library etc pay a subscription for you to read.

    “As I suggested, perhaps you could instead read medical texts that would give you a more up to date view of CKD in the country?”

    It is up-to-date, not 1960 as you are still trying to make out. It is about how 1960 to the presnt is different from before 1960.

    And I gave another nearly up-to-date, 2011 article abstract relating varieties of kidney disease figures.

    ““Angina” – a symptom, not a diagnosis. Prinzmetal is one cause, so is IHD, so is abnormal rate control, so is cardiomyopathy, so is… If you do not have access to someone’s medical records, then you only have what they tell you – complete with errors of understanding, poor recollection, and the limitations of that person’s education.”

    They went to hospital with chest pain, and had an angiogram, where the heart is xrayed with a contrast dye put into the heart blood injected through a long tube going to the heart from a groin artery. As a result they were told they did not have heart disease – their arteries were clear.

    “And never forget that the same things apply to yourself and your understanding, especially, as we have found, the lack of education.”

    I learn from things I come up against. No I don’t know the whole picture, but if I may say I have not had 6 years of being turned into a drug vending machine for the drug corporates.

    Like

  248. soundhill,

    “I have not had 6 years of being turned into a drug vending machine…”

    I don’t know of anyone at all who fits that description, although I have frequently noted how you sing the praises of those marketing machines at naturalnews and mercola. How many years have you been shilling for naturalnews and mercola?

    Like

  249. soundhill,

    I limit my comments to things I understand. So does Ken.

    You, however, don’t have the knowledge to understand that you don’t know.

    In this thread alone, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge about (in no particular order):
    Angina
    Deep vein thrombosis
    Cardiac anatomy
    Pulmonary embolism
    Arterial embolism
    Heart failure
    Myocardial infarction
    Arterial thrombus
    Human anatomy
    Cerebrovascular accidents
    Chronic kidney disease…
    …and many others.

    It’s obvious from the simple errors you made that your “knowledge” of these subjects perpetuates multiple errors found on the ‘net. In other words, you have been incapable of understanding that “knowledge” and recognising the errors it contains.

    I wouldn’t presume to dispute your knowledge as an electronic technician because I have got neither the training nor the knowledge to understand the subject.

    You, however, believe that your 15 minutes with Dr Google gives you more knowledge and expertise than someone with decades of recurrent learning, teaching, training and working in the relevant field.

    A simple problem, often asked of medical students in their first weeks on the wards, is to give ten diagnoses resulting in angina, or chronic kidney disease, or heart failure… Your comments above demonstrate that you would not even understand the problem or why it was being posed.

    I’ve previously suggested that you look up Dunning-Kruger. You can take longer than 15 minutes to look it up on Google if you like. But this time, tell us exactly what Dunning-Kruger means and how you believe it applies to you.

    Like

  250. Natural News attacks other natural foods companies where they have heavy metals in supplements. I find their stuff useful, but always reading with open mind.

    I’ve seen Mercola stuff for a long time. But for me he didn’t warn early enough about the risks of taking calcium and vitamin D without vitamin K2.

    Mercola has been one of the early ones to ask for reversal of the anti-saturated fat message coming from the GMO soy bean industry. The message is becoming main-stream, now with a battle going on in the British Medical Journal publishing an article disputing the benefits of low saturated fat diet, and being attacked by the so-called “Center for Science in the Public Interest.” The CSPI are soy-promoters as I point out here if it gets through:

    http://thebigfatsurprise.com/overview-bmj-retraction-request-including-response-11-allegations/#comment-104325

    I am also wondering about looking into a hypothesis I have that non-fermented soy protein extender may be attacking thyroids enough that fluoride may be adding to troubles. It’s a little bit ahead, but note though the quake may have been responsible for increased crime in Christchurch, for its size it is lower on crime than fluoridated cities on average. How are y doin there in Hamilton?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8970746/Christchurch-is-not-crime-capital

    Like

  251. Angina: if you have that chest pain you need a diagnosis of the cause.
    Don’t let the doctors do nothing if they find your heart blood vessels are clear, ask their opinion if you might have an intermittent arterial spasm restricting blood flow to the heart. Stuartg says angina is not a diagnosis. I say you needs a diagnosis if you have it. Who do you trust?

    Deep vein thrombosis: can occur when you sit still for a long time. Maybe kidney disease sufferers are more at risk of it and of following on adverse events. The veins carry de-oxygenated blood back to the heart, but usually there are several routes it can take so you may not notice one is blocked by a clot. I have not studied this but I would suspect some quite small veins could get clots in them, which may then be dislodged by movement, then get caught in a coronary artery. Or get pumped through the heart to the lungs and start a pulmonary embolism.

    Cardiac anatomy: smallish arteries which traverse the surface of the heart supply blood to its muscles so it can pump blood through its chambers to lungs or rest of body, that pumping being through the major vessel the aorta. (interesting that the aorta is elastic and acts as a reservoir to supply blood to the brain when it is the heart’s off beat. If the aorta gets stiffer then the heart pumps greater pressure to fill it, which is the systolic blood pressure. And on the off beat the diastolic pressure will be lower. It is my hypothesis it be healthier if they only differ by about 40 mm Hg. I suggest not to think of the average of systolic and diastolic pressures.)

    Pulmonary embolism: a clot and/or some fatty tissue caught in a lung blood vessel making it hard to breathe such as you might get on tamoxifen cancer prevention.

    Arterial embolism: I suppose where plaque in an artery (from calcium plus vitamin D supplementation without vitamin K2?) makes a place of slow blood movement for a clot to grow or more fat to catch, or it is gas blockage such as in the bends which deep divers get if they surface too quickly and don’t let the nitrogen compressed into their blood come out slowly.

    Heart failure: where the heart is not getting enough blood to its muscles to pump sufficient blood around the body. Often when the muscles have been deprived of blood before and partially died because of build up of plaque in the heart arteries.

    Myocardial infarction: when a heart (cardio) muscle (myo) is too deprived of blood for the heart to continue beating properly.

    Arterial thrombus: a blood clot in an artery which is one sort of “embolism” or can be part of one. Not enough blood can pass through the artery to supply that toe or whatever else,

    Human anatomy: where was I wrong?

    Cerebrovascular accidents: where a blood vessel in the brain either ruptures and bleeds or gets narrowed by plaque (or a spasm? I don’t know if brain arteries have smooth muscle) so part of the brain is not getting the blood it needs. I don’t remember talking about such.

    Chronic kidney disease… “Chronic” is something happening over sustained time, (as opposed to “acute” which may be a sudden infection or a poison suddenly stopping the kidneys working properly, reabsorbing cleansed circulatory liquid as they are supposed to) CKD often results from high blood pressure (as I said above resulting partly from when the aorta has become too stiff) or from diabetes. Or in the case of younger people as one of my quoted articles said not a result of either of those but hypothesised to be as a result of several factors “interacting” not just “adding,” please note.

    …and many others: and how about you admitting you are still learning?

    Like

  252. Stuartg wrote: ““Angina” – a symptom, not a diagnosis.”

    When a patient presents with chest pain the doctor may immedately give the patient an anaesthetic liquid to swallow, to see if that stops the pain, meaning that would rule out ulcer or oesophageal spasm. Angina is them more likely, but you do not wish to call that diagnosis?

    Like

  253. Or I should have written , “Angina is then more likely to be the pain, once the ulcer and spasm causes of pain have been ruled out.”

    Like

  254. I think it possible that when an angiogram does not show narrowed arteries that some poorly trained diagnosers might say the chest pain was not angina. They would be meaning not the pain you get when your heart is not getting enough blood. Whereas the lack of blood may be due to a spasm of the heart artery and so may indeed have been angina. That is an arterial spasm which could relax away when you get the relaxing drug for the angiogram procedure.

    Like

  255. soundhill,

    That took you much longer than usual with Dr Google.

    Interesting that you don’t know what the word diagnosis actually means. You use it instead of more appropriate and accurate terms.

    You frequently demonstrate that you are lacking elemental knowledge about the human being and life sciences. Unfortunately the more advanced sciences that you profess to know so much about have that base foundation which has escaped your comprehension.

    Even after your extended perusal of Dr Google with your recent comment, you still demonstrate wild inaccuracies and lack of understanding of the basic concepts.

    For example, basic anatomy of the heart precludes a DVT from resulting in an embolic stroke – that’s a simple anatomic error you made. (And, yes, before you go to Google again, I know of exceptions that were completely irrelevant in context) Ditto emboli causing heart attack – an error in basic anatomy (that’s two errors in your knowledge of anatomy that you were unaware of, will that suffice?)

    Perhaps you could go to medical school yourself? It’s a lot more accurate and enlightening than Dr Google. Or maybe you could join your idol Mercola and do osteopathy in the USA? Unfortunately for you, either would mean having to do the basics and learning high school science…

    Now, tell us how Dunning-Kruger relates to yourself.

    Like

  256. soundhill,

    “…and many others: and how about you admitting you are still learning?”

    I believe that I already did so, several times. The most recent is: “You, however, believe that your 15 minutes with Dr Google gives you more knowledge and expertise than someone with decades of recurrent learning, teaching, training and working in the relevant field.”

    I have to repeatedly demonstrate that I am continuing my education. Do you? Or do you continue to rely on what you learned before you could start high school science, along with Dr Google?

    As well as actively demonstrating it, you could also tell us how the Dunning-Kruger effect relates to yourself.

    Like

  257. Stuartg, we still haven’t figured why Dr Mayhew said Lomu’s death would have been so sudden that he didn’t know what happened.

    I was thinking something like what “Dr Google” now tells me is a right heart embolus. He even gives a Youtube xray video with one not just in the compartment of the heart where the blood from the veins enters, but “prolapsing” through the valve into the next compartment.

    RHE is said to be uncommon but fatal in quite a percentage of cases. But so far I have not read of how sudden the death may be.

    You told me that RHE could not happen so I changed my thinking to the blockage being in the arteries supplying blood to the heart muscle getting blocked. You said it does not happen, but I asked again. I still ask if it may be an uncommon thing.

    I did check google, “embolism” for my previous comment, but nothing else, and bits of it I thought out years ago.

    Like

  258. I wrote: “You told me that RHE could not happen so I changed my thinking to the blockage being in the arteries supplying blood to the heart muscle getting blocked. You said it does not happen, but I asked again. I still ask if it may be an uncommon thing.”

    Though I now suppose the blood from the veins has to go through rather small blood vessels in the lungs before coming back to the heart oxygenated and ready to supply the heart muscles. Big clots couldn’t get through. But some sort of lung rupture might do it for small clots.

    Like

  259. soundhill,

    “we still haven’t figured why Dr Mayhew said Lomu’s death would have been so sudden that he didn’t know what happened.”

    Be accurate, you haven’t figured it out. Everyone else has.

    Like

  260. soundhill,

    “Though I now suppose the blood from the veins has to go through rather small blood vessels in the lungs before coming back to the heart oxygenated and ready to supply the heart muscles. Big clots couldn’t get through. But some sort of lung rupture might do it for small clots.”

    Dunning-Kruger strikes again!

    Like

  261. soundhill,

    “You told me that RHE could not happen so I changed my thinking to the blockage being in the arteries supplying blood to the heart muscle getting blocked. You said it does not happen, but I asked again. I still ask if it may be an uncommon thing.”

    Would you care to explain what you mean by RHE?

    You continue to demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect. Care to let us know how you see it pertaining to you?

    Like

  262. Sorry I wrote RHE (right heart emboli) rather than RHT (right heart thrombi) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQGs_o_dc-Y

    Like

  263. soundhill,

    Care to let us know what you mean by right heart thrombi?

    After all, I live in the real world, not one where random TLAs can be produced out of thin air.

    You’re doing a good job of illustrating Dunning-Kruger, though.

    Like

  264. soundhill,

    Show me where I said that a right heart thrombus (note singular) cannot happen.

    Part of your fantasy world again, I’m afraid

    Like

  265. I wrote: “we still haven’t figured why Dr Mayhew said Lomu’s death would have been so sudden that he didn’t know what happened.”

    Stuartg wrote: “Be accurate, you haven’t figured it out. Everyone else has.”

    The timeline of events has not been listed here.

    Like

  266. Stuartg: “Show me where I said that a right heart thrombus (note singular) cannot happen.”

    You said emboli do not get caught in the heart, didn’t you? An embolus can become a thrombus in the heart. You are not accepting type A:

    “Type A thrombi are morphologically serpiginous, highly mobile and associated with deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is hypothesized that these clots embolize from large veins and are captured in-transit within the right heart. Predisposing factors include prominent eustachian valves (7), tricuspid regurgitation, low cardiac output and pulmonary hypertension (8). Type B thrombi are nonmobile and are believed to form in situ in association with underlying cardiac abnormalities. Type C thrombi are rare, share a similar appearance to a myxoma and are highly mobile.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643227/

    Like

  267. Stuartg, regarding DK effect have you or I been expressing more certainty?
    “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.”
    —Bertrand Russell, The Triumph of Stupidity

    Like

  268. soundhill,

    A right atria or ventricularl thrombus has not been “caught” there, but originated there. Completely different concept, of which you are obviously unaware (until you subsequently confer with Dr Google).

    Again, show me where I said that a right heart thrombus cannot happen.

    How about telling us how Dunning-Kruger applies to you?

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is.

    Like

  269. soundhill,

    You are (unknowingly) talking about pulmonary embolism.

    Pulmonary emboli have nothing to do with right (or left) atrial (or ventricular) thrombi, and you are obviously unaware of this.

    You are confusing multiple entities that you would be aware of if you understood the basic life sciences. Since you don’t have the knowledge of those basic life sciences, you remain confused although you are not aware of the confusion.

    You are providing an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

    Like

  270. soundhill,

    Stick with what you know – electronic technology.

    Before you comment on anything else, try taking some high school science classes.

    Like

  271. soundhill,

    Try looking up saddle embolus.

    You may find it answers a few of the questions you have been unable to find an answer for on Dr Google.

    Then again, you may not have the basic knowledge to be able to understand….

    Like

  272. Stuartg perhaps you took “captured” to mean “caught inside,” having grown in there. But “captured” has another meaning, which, for want of better expressions, “grabbed” or “nabbed.”

    “I am coming for my cat soon, could you please capture him and put him in the cage.”

    I think you are more thinking of creatures raised in “captivity” not “captured.”

    Here is anopther description and I suggest type A are captured and type B raised in captivity.

    “Right sided heart thrombi may develop within the right heart chambers or they may be peripheral venous clots that, on their way to the lungs, accidentally lodge in a patent foramen ovale, tricuspid chordae or Chiari’s network. Type A thrombi have a worm-like shape and are extremely mobile.1 These pleomorphic thrombi are mainly localised to the right atrium, frequently move back and forth through the tricuspid orifice, and may cause cardiovascular collapse when entrapment occurs.2 Type B thrombi attach to the atrial or ventricle wall indicating that they are probably of local origin.”
    http://heart.bmj.com/content/78/5/515.full

    Type A are associated with pulmonary embolism. I suggest the possibility of part of an embolus getting scissored off in the heart and continuing on to the lung. That might be rare but so are these RHT.

    Like

  273. Saddle embolus. Has the potential to block both lung arteries though usually one a bit more than the other. It “lodges” or is “captured” where the artery to the lungs divides to go to each lung. If both lungs’ blood supply are totally blocked death may occur within minutes. Thanks.

    If the embolus “lodges” or is “captured” instead in the heart, that would likely mean some unusuality in the heart, such as if after birth the normal complete sealing-off of a blood pathway needed before birth does not fully occur. Unusual in a top rugby player?

    I guess saddle embolism was more likely. In one study 0.3% of pulmonary embolism cases died of saddle embolism in hospital. But for it to happen so fast he did not know what happened must be very rare.

    Like

  274. soundhill,

    Re-read your own references. Read the others.

    Then contemplate why we consider some things common and others rare.

    Ask yourself why you are proposing rare complications of even rarer conditions, none of which match the circumstances, rather than something that occurs commonly and is encountered every day in NZ EDs, and which does match the circumstances.

    Then tell us how the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to yourself.

    Like

  275. soundhill,

    You’re doing a good job of demonstrating how to impress the naive with irrelevant citations, though!

    Like

  276. Stuartg, did you relate to my comment on the meanings of “sudden” death – that which hasn’t been expected? I think you mean that sort of thing when you say it happens every day in EDs – not the rare sudden total blockage of blood flow. I read the death, if it happens, often occurs within the hour from pulmonary embolism, which makes up the 0.3% of cases in one study, I think, though they did not give the time frame in that study. I had not heard of saddle embolism instantaneously blocking the arteries to both lungs. That is rare, not the sort of thing happening every day. A small fraction of the 0.3% I suggest.

    I thought of the clot suddenly lodging in the heart, which is the right heart thrombus type A which you had not known about. But you could have saved a lot of time if you had said “saddle embolism” as soon as I asked how pulmonary embolism could likely have produced death which would be so fast Lomu would not have known what happened. But anyway you have learned something: that there are more than one type of right heart thrombi.
    I was “proposing rare complications of even rarer conditions,” because I did not know how rare. But I have read that often the failure of the before-birth extra heart internal opening to close and being like an extra valve is regarded as no problem so may be less rare than you think. How rare do you think it is?

    Like

  277. “Then tell us how the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to yourself.” It doesn’t because I never express certainty.

    Like

  278. soundhill,

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is.

    “It doesn’t (apply to me) because I never express certainty.” It’s obvious from that sentence that you don’t understand what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

    And you’re even wrong with that statement. You express certainty that fluoride causes lots of problems…

    Like

  279. Stuartg, Sometimes I express supposed superiority. Recently Scientific American has come out and expressed dissatisfaction about how FDA controls the media. So I believe myself and Scientific American to be superior to you and the news media FDA material you try to reinforce.

    I don’t express certainty that fluoride causes lots of problems, but I do believe there is a case to answer whichever way. N

    Like

  280. Sorry wrong button, …continued Not your “millions have drunk fluoridated water and no problems have shown,” certainty.

    Like

  281. soundhill,

    You’ve got yourself bogged down in lots of misunderstandings.

    DVTs usually occur in leg veins. If they become mobile they pass through the heart since blood flow through the heart is laminar and means smooth passage through the heart. Nothing there to stop them. They then lodge in the vasculature of the lungs, causing pulmonary emboli, saddle emboli, massive pulmonary ebolus, call them what you will. A large enough embolus, or sufficient smaller pulmonary emboli, will cause acute pulmonary hypertension by blocking blood flow, which can trigger ventricular fibrillation. Incidence – a lot higher than your fantasies about right heart thrombus. Many don’t reach ED but are diagnosed at autopsy.

    Is that simple enough for you? (I can talk about DVT in pelvic veins, arm veins, etc, if you like, but those aren’t relevant to your fantasies. I can even talk about how your knowledge of venous and lung anatomy is full of errors as well, if you like)

    (Sighs) Yes, I know about patent foramen ovale and how it can allow a DVT to mobilise to the arterial circulation. Remember, I did suggest that you not bother googling for it because it obviously doesn’t apply.

    Right heart thrombus forms in the heart, not elsewhere, and requires some form of cardiac defect to upset laminar blood flow and let blood pool and start clotting. Non-laminar blood flow in the heart results in easily detectable cardiac murmurs. It also causes the Korotkoff sounds heard when listening for blood pressure. I told you before, right heart thrombus just doesn’t match the circumstances, as you would have realised if you actually knew the basics.

    I’ve corrected some of your misunderstood anatomy. I’ve made the above as simple as I can, and it again demonstrates your lack of knowledge in a field that you have self-assessed your knowledge as being higher than average.

    You thought that you knew about anatomy, pulmonary physiology, cardiac blood flow, etc, – it’s the illusory superiority that Dunning and Kruger referred to, causing you to assess your knowledge as being much higher than it actually is.

    Like

  282. soundhill,

    Since I’m a NZ doctor, what significance does the FDA have to my practice?

    Answer: exactly as much as the Chines drug agency has – none.

    Oh, by the way, why don’t you consider Scientific American to be part of the media?

    Like

  283. Thanks for eventually starting to respond.

    Stuartg: “Right heart thrombus forms in the heart, not elsewhere,”

    That is type B.

    Do you deny type A?

    “and requires some form of cardiac defect to upset laminar blood flow and let blood pool and start clotting.”

    What shape are they?

    Type A are worm-like because they formed in a vein somewhere. And they are not anchored.

    “I told you before, right heart thrombus just doesn’t match the circumstances, as you would have realised if you actually knew the basics.”

    Let’s confirm about types A & B.

    And remember I am not trying to say it is one or the other or the other. I am only exploring as with fluoride.

    Like

  284. Stuartg, what NZ evidence did you use to call Mercola a snake oil salesperson?

    Scientific American are part of the “Nature” publishing group, which must be under somewhat different set of directors than what send news out to the general public.

    Like

  285. soundhill,

    “I am not trying to say it is one or the other or the other(sic)”

    Read back. Your comments to date bely that statement.

    If you have no knowledge of the subject, or no opinion on it, then why do you comment? The “exploring” that you claim you are doing is best done by reading an up to date textbook on the subject, followed by the references the textbook uses.

    I wouldn’t comment in a discussion about your specialisation as an electronic technician because I know that I don’t have the knowledge or training. Neither would Ken. Or Steve Slott. But, although you demonstrate less knowledge of science than that taught in high schools, you believe that your abilities in science are greater than those of scientific specialists commenting here.

    This thread has certainly demonstrated that your knowledge of the medical sciences is much lower than you assess it to be – it’s become a stunning demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

    Like

  286. Stuartg you eventually answered a possible way how Lomu died. If I sound a bit persuaive it is only because I think you are making a mistake by not acknowledging hat papers have written of type A right heart thrombus. I have also pointed out how wiki says, and I have suspicions about it here, that persons with angina due to coronary artery spasm are not getting the correct diagnosis sometimes.

    I want people treated properly. I think these omissions are part of a greater problem of ignoring needs of tails of the distribution, some of whcih may have contained our best leaders if we had not ignored their needs.

    I know a doctor has to have authority, but I think it helps that if they are prepared to listen. Society is moving on in some circles from the “I know best, do what I say,” to “let”s take another look.”

    Like

  287. Stuartg: “I wouldn’t comment in a discussion about your specialisation as an electronic technician because I know that I don’t have the knowledge or training. Neither would Ken. Or Steve Slott. But, although you demonstrate less knowledge of science than that taught in high schools, you believe that your abilities in science are greater than those of scientific specialists commenting here.”

    I was at primary school when I started playing around with crystal set radio receivers, and then valve ones. Dad had some books and I taught myself about electronics, doing some things watching him, too. I was learning music, too, but formally. In both fields I still work out stuff for myself and I have applied that to learning about vitamins, too, buying nutrition books like Muriel Bell’s and Davidson and Passmore, before the days of the internet, of course. Then on to others like “Food Allergy and Intolerance.” I think some doctors are behind on such subjects.

    At the moment the American Psychiatric Association are trying to get the FDA to give approval for them to electroshock children who do not “respond” to their drugs, even when those drugs are known to cause serious side effects such as suicidal ideation. Just perhaps they should be tried on a diet more suitable for them first.

    Like

  288. soundhill,

    “Stuartg you eventually answered a possible way how Lomu died.”

    Read back. I didn’t. All I’ve done is try to explain to you words that a journalist wrote.

    You said: “There was Jonah Lomu but he died young of kidney failure/ heart attack.”

    My first comment was to point out that your opinion was contradicted by his own doctor: I suggest that you check up on your beliefs, since they are often wrong. Try the opinion of the All Black doctor for his cause of death instead of your own: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/12011623/Jonah-Lomu-medic-says-All-Blacks-great-probably-suffered-fatal-blood-clot-after-plane-flight.html

    Followed by: Contrary to your belief that Jonah died of kidney failure/heart attack, the best description there, and elsewhere, is of a “blood clot on the lung” ie a pulmonary embolism.

    I can’t help it if you don’t comprehend what a journalist means by a “blood clot on the lung.” Neither is it my fault that you lack the knowledge to understand the more precise diagnosis of “pulmonary embolism.”

    Like

  289. soundhill,

    “I was at primary school when I started playing around with crystal set radio receivers, and then valve ones. Dad had some books and I taught myself about electronics, doing some things watching him, too.”

    So did I.

    I know enough to know that I don’t know much about the subject, even though I’m actually typing this on a computer I built myself.

    Your attempts to “work out stuff for myself” means that you haven’t learned enough about the life sciences to be aware of how little you have actually learned and how vast are the gaps in your basic knowledge.

    I meant it sincerely when I said that your comments on this thread have become a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

    Like

  290. In my memory Lomu’s doctor was reported in one article about him having had a heart attack likely to be made more likely by his kidney condition. Must not trust what I read. Thanks for educating me a saddle embolism.

    I’ll get into your Mercola URLs, From memory the main substance of some of them is the sunbeds and thermography stories which I have talked about and is another of my comments that you haven’t acknowledged or replied about so maybe you could start there.

    Like

  291. I remember also one of those Mercola URLs calling him an ostepath.
    We had a long discussion before Stuartg, about how in the USA, Mercola’s qualification of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine gave him the same right as an MD, and he was head of a family medicine practice. Do you want to go over all that again?

    Like

  292. Stuartg, as far as you and one or your URLs goes calling Mercola an “osteopath,” he isn’t. He is actually DO or doctor of osteopathic medicine, which allows him to prescribe drugs and do operations that osteopaths don’t do.

    “According to documents published online, the Medical Board of Australia has “agreed to accept the DO USA as a primary medical qualification for the purposes of medical registration provided that the DO USA was awarded by a medical school which has been accredited by the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation.”””

    and for NZ: “Hearing required. Case-by-case basis.” I am not sure if that will be more or less strict than Australia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine

    Like

  293. soundhill,

    You’ve commented about this before. But go ahead, explain to us how you fantasise that someone with a Diplomate in Osteopathy / Doctor in Osteopathy / Doctor in Osteopathic Medicine is not an osteopath.

    That DO still doesn’t stop Mercola being a quack snake oil salesman who makes illegal and unethical claims.

    Like

  294. soundhill,

    Of course, not all DOs are awarded by schools that have been accredited by the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation…

    What do you, personally, call someone with a DO from one of those schools?

    I’d still call them an osteopath.

    Like

  295. soundhill,

    Mercola and thermography: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2011/ucm250701.htm

    Definitely meets the definition of snake oil salesman.

    Like

  296. Stuartg: “Of course, not all DOs are awarded by schools that have been accredited by the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation…

    What do you, personally, call someone with a DO from one of those schools?

    I’d still call them an osteopath.”

    No they are not. They do less training in manipulation and more iin allopathy/surgery.

    Mercola is board certified. Also he trained in Illinois which is accredited.

    Like

  297. soundhill,

    Allopathy – obsolescent term, meaning anything that isn’t homeopathy. Includes reiki, acupuncture, faith healing, osteopathy, herbs, yoga, physiotherapy, hypnosis… as well as modern medicine.

    Mercola promotes homeopathy too.

    He certainly doesn’t practice modern medicine. (Evidence: peruse his website)

    Re-reading your comment: are you actually saying that osteopaths from non-recognised and non-accredited osteopathic schools are not osteopaths?

    Like

  298. Stuartg: I wrote: “Of course, not all DOs are awarded by schools that have been accredited by the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation…”

    “What do you, personally, call someone with a DO from one of those schools?”

    Stuartg thanks for pointing out my error.

    I was fortunate to go to an orthopaedic hip surgeon who also does musculoskeletal manipulation which you might call a form of ostepoathy.

    He had me lie down on my back, then, standing at the foot of the bed he took my hands and helped me sit up with legs still flat on the bed. He showed me that one foot came further forward than the other. He then manipulated my hip-spine joint and corrected the trouble.

    I am presuming that an American DO training combines musculoskeletal manipulation training with what you might call conventional medicine so as the doctor can use the most appropriate treatment.

    An “osteopath” as we know them here can do “musculo-skeletal” treatments of patients under ACC but not work like regular doctors too and do hip replacements etc. Some of our pain is from habitual muscular tension, which osteopaths learn to relax. I think it to be better for a doctor to be able to do that rather than prescribe habit-forming pain killers if they can be avoided.

    I think the “Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation” will mean a degree where the doctor learns both, as opposed to the osteopathy training in NZ, UK which is not called DO. My guess is that it possible to take the NZ/UK training in the USA but then you would not be a DO.

    33 colleges of osteopathic medicine in USA.
    http://www.aacom.org/become-a-doctor/us-coms

    Like

  299. The term “allopath” is commonly used to mean a conventional doctor.

    Conventional doctors of old used to treat people with opposites for example bleed them to cool them. Hahnemann, the first “homeopath” didn’t find success in the conventional medicine of the time, and worked out a procedure treating “likes” with small doses of “likes” which I suppose is a bit reminiscent of stimulating the immune system with a vaccine. (The word “vaccine” related to cow (French “La Vache”) where it be noticed that milk maids having caught a “like” disease – cow pox – did not get disfiguring small pox.

    The idea is you give the smallest dose possible to trigger the immune system.

    Like

  300. Stuartg do you ever feel exasperated at the slow pace of science, that you and it were promoting annual screenig mammograms for women in their forties and now aren’t?

    Like

  301. soundhill,

    Allopathy – an archaic term invented by Hahnemann to describe every form of treatment that was not his creation of homeopathy. Now only used by homeopathists. And soundhill1 – if he’s not a homeopathist.

    Like

  302. soundhill,

    Do you ever feel exasperated that scientists never accept your fantasies without question? That they always ask you to provide proof for those fantasies, proof that doesn’t exist?

    Like

  303. “Allopathy – an archaic term invented by Hahnemann to describe every form of treatment that was not his creation of homeopathy.”

    and those forms of treatment the thought ineffrective and he wished to distinguish from were?

    “Now only used by homeopathists. And soundhill1 – if he’s not a homeopathist.”

    No it’s quite commonly used On Pubmed the first two hundred hits on allopathic go back to June 2014, the next 200 to June 2012, Jan 2018, Feb 2004, Feb 1999, 1984, 1972.

    So it’s been increasing in use since 2012 since you have been getting out of touch.

    Like

  304. Stuartg: “Mercola promotes homeopathy too.”

    Sometimes patients start to feel better when they know the doctor is coming, before they get the treatment. Placebo is a very strong part of many treatments.

    I know you won’t grumble if it helps a patient who is being treated by a conventional doctor. Or a child who stops crying when its mother picks it up: a sort of linked matter.

    But I am not saying that homeopathy is all placebo.

    However the human organism can respond to very tiny amounts of stimuli.

    As a scientist you will be familiar with the concept of 4.18 joules of energy raising a cubic centimeter of water by 1 degree.

    The human eye can detect about
    0.0000000000000000003 joules.

    If flashes come in a pattern they can signal something to the organism. Women’s menstruation can be synchronised to the full moon light can’t it?

    You being an either-or person would have to think of the phases of water as one or the other. Ice having the molecules grouped in a pattern- crystal, whereas as water is totally haphazard. You couldn’t think of a phase in between where molecules of water take on some pattern within the liquid without forming an ice crystal.

    In the old days chemical reactions with water talked of
    H2O => H+ + OH-, and the right hand side doing the reacting.
    But it was then found 2H20 => H3O+ + OH-.
    And that H3O+ is more likely than H+.

    So why leave it there? The first step up being 2H2O => H4O2.

    Note how carbon can form into several forms, some being diamond, graphite (as in a pencil) and sort of single layer graphite or “graphene” which has amazing electrical properties and was only recently discovered.

    I don’t think “amorphous” mix of single H20 to be water, and I don’t see why a living organism would not recognise a difference if they can detect such a tiny amount of energy in the eye.

    Maybe dogs can smell sense the difference between various homeopathic remedies?

    “He certainly doesn’t practice modern medicine. (Evidence: peruse his website)”

    Tricky.
    He is not practicing medicine at the moment, no. But he has been. At one early stage he was a salesman for hormone replacement therapy.

    Now he spends his time on wider educational issues.

    What do you say about this?:
    http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2016/06/24/home-remedies-for-ingrown-toenail.aspx

    Like

  305. soundhill,

    Allopathy – an archaic word, invented by Hahnemann to describe any form of treatment that isn’t his fantasy creation of homeopathy. Now only used by homeopathist.

    Apart from confirming my description, do you have a point?

    Like

  306. “Allopathy – an archaic word, invented by Hahnemann to describe any form of treatment that isn’t his fantasy creation of homeopathy.”

    “any form of treatment that isn’t his fantasy creation of homeopathy.”
    but thinking in terms of what treatments he knew.

    I don’t think he would have demanded, “I have created homeopathy and every treatment for the whole of eternity which is not homeopathy will have to be called allopathy.”

    If he could treat like with like, the forerunner of vaccination, Hahnemann must have had plenty of intelligence. I don’t think he would have expected that other researchers could not in the future do improvements of the conventional treatments of the time.

    And in your philosophy you said osteopathy would be allopathy. But in this, medical education is divided into allopathy OR osteopathy, giving the common up-tp-date use of the word which you do not wish to concede.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27519253

    Students grading schools for conflict of interest:

    “The grade distributions of allopathic and osteopathic schools were significantly different (p < 0.0001), with osteopathic schools more likely than allopathic schools to have incomplete policies. There were no significant grade differences by geographical region."

    So going back to this:
    Stuartg wrote: "What do you, personally, call someone with a DO from one of those schools?

    I’d still call them an osteopath.”

    I wrote: "No they are not. They do less training in manipulation and more in allopathy/surgery." I continue: "less manipulation training than an osteopath such as we have in NZ."

    I used "allopathy" in the up-to-date sense that it has taken on, of the medical schools which do not train widely in musculo-skeletal relaxation techniques for pain relief that.

    A bit more about homeopathy and dilutions: I am not sure of the verity of it but I read dogs can detect a vinegar dilution in which it is diluted to one tenth 10 times. I believe in homeopathy terms that would be 10X. I admit I do not understand more extreme dilutions.

    But how really dangerous is alternative medicine when conventional medicine is not finding proper ways with its drugs and practices and may be killing more people each week than 9/11?

    Do you know of transferred aggression in cats? A cat seeing a stray cat through the window, spraying, may turn and attack its friend cat beside it.

    The attack on alternative medicine was very strong in the days when Fishbein was editor of JAMA. And he did not even have a medical degree. Then the courts ruled that the conspiracy to shut down chiropractors etc had to stop. But the attack, as we see in Stuartg is still strong, transferred aggression I assert, when they should be improving their own medical education scenario. Here is an MD's attempt: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199338

    Like

  307. soundhill,

    Allopathy – an archaic term invented by Hahnemann about two hundred years ago to describe all methods of treatment that were not his fantasy invention of homeopathy. Now only used by homeopathists (who haven’t learned about this “new fangled” thing called science that disproved homeopathy).

    And, again, other than confirming that the word is archaic and only being used by homeopathists, your point is..?

    Like

  308. soundhill,

    “I don’t think he would have demanded, “I have created homeopathy and every treatment for the whole of eternity which is not homeopathy will have to be called allopathy.””

    But that’s exactly what his followers, current homeopathists, who haven’t noticed that science has disproven his fantasy invention and so still slavishly follow his writings, do demand.

    Like

  309. Actually, I think the point is that arguing about allopathy allows him to divert comment away from his osteopathic snake oil salesman idol Mercola who has repeatedly made illegal and unethical claims in his sales of proven useless equipment and supplements.

    Like

  310. soundhill,

    At least we now understand why you don’t want to learn about science.

    By your use of the archaic word “allopathy” you have demonstrated that you are a homeopath. Homeopaths ignore all of science later than Hahnemann, since for his fantasies to work would mean that the entire of science would have to be overturned. Cars wouldn’t drive, planes wouldn’t fly, electronics would be useless, plants wouldn’t grow, humans wouldn’t exist…

    In a short description of their beliefs, homeopaths fantasise that the more a substance is diluted, the more powerful it becomes; the less there is of a substance the more effective it is.

    This results in the absurd situation of them diluting a substance to a stage where a single molecule would be found in a sphere of water about the size of the Earth’s orbit. A single drop of this water is then placed on a sugar tablet, which is dried. The homeopath then claims that the sugar tablet is more powerful in treating illness than the best that modern medicine can supply – even if the substance that was diluted was “Berlin Wall” or “Light of Saturn”.

    Not even homeopaths can distinguish one of their sugar pills from another containing a different “active ingredient”.

    And Mercola promotes homeopathy…

    Homeopaths avoid science, because science has repeatedly shown that their treatment is effective only in self-limiting or self-resolving conditions, and that its effect is exactly the same as can be achieved by a long talk with a good listener. Science calls this form of treatment a placebo, and notes that it is not consistently effective in an individual, and that it doesn’t produce any changes for most people.

    Homeopaths like to surround themselves with the appearance of science. They think it lends an air of respectability. All that appearance does is alert scientists to the presence of bovine excrement.

    As you demonstrate, the appearance of science given by the homeopath does not mean that the homeopath actually has any knowledge of science or how the scientific method works.

    Like

  311. Stuartg have you not ever had to say about a medicine or procedure that science doesn’t know quite how it works, just that it does?

    And I think you know how, as I quoted, “allopathic colleges” is quite commonly used to describe colleges offering paths to medical registration which are not “colleges of homeopathic medicine.”

    Most people know that and it is you making a lot out of it I suspect to divert the thread.

    You are trying to provide a theory of why homeopathy would not work, therefore why Mercola is a quack.

    But as with some of your medications, rather than the theory you should go by the results, meagre though they may be, over placebo.

    Until you come to grips with that you look to be part of the agenda to discredit useful healers that the AMA got a permeate injunction against them for.

    Like

  312. “colleges of homeopathic medicine.” sorry I meant of course “colleges of osteopathic medicine.”
    “Judge Susan Getzendanner found the AMA and others guilty of an illegal conspiracy against the chiropractic profession in September of 1987, ordering a permeate injunction against the AMA and forcing them to print the courts findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Several other of the defendants settled out of court helping to pay for the chiropractors legal expenses and donating to a chiropractic non-profit home for disabled children, Kentuckiana Children’s Center.

    This decision was upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1990 and again by the U.S. Supreme Court that same year.”
    http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/237.cfm

    Like

  313. Just to avoid confusion, that case was about chiropractors. The AMA was already satisfied with the registered Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine like Mercola.

    Here is a description, which also corrects a statement I made about Fishbein.

    http://www.truthwiki.org/morris-fishbein-ama-president/

    Like

  314. soundhill,

    Homeopathy has had two hundred years to prove if it works. It hasn’t.

    The word “allopathy” was coined by Hahnemann in 1810 as a derogatory term for any form of medical practice that wasn’t his fantasy invention of homeopathy.

    The only people who currently utilise this archaic term are homeopaths. The term has not changed its meaning.

    Homeopaths claim that science does not know how homeopathy works. They are wrong. Science has shown that homeopathy doesn’t work. At all.

    Makes me wonder why Mercola still promotes homeopathy. Maybe it’s because it makes him lots of money? Big Snake Oil?

    Like

  315. soundhill,

    Hahnemann invented the word “allopathy” in 1810.

    He used it as a derogatory term to describe any medical practice that wasn’t his fantasy invention of homeopathy.

    His followers still use that meaning today.

    So, allopathy includes not just modern medicine (with its base in science), but many other therapies not based in science, such as chiropractic, hypnosis, Reiki, music therapy, cryotherapy, acupuncture, TCM, moxibustion, Alexander technique, aromatherapy, energy medicine, naturopathy, osteopathy, Ayurveda, manipulation, yoga, tai chi, probiotics, meditation, massage, relaxation, qi gong, movement therapy, Pilates, rolfing, feldenkrais, trager psychophysical integration, meditation, spinal manipulation, traditional healing, chelation, Christian faith healing, sekkotsu, astrology, numerology, chakras, bioelectromagnetic therapy, and many others, most of which have exactly as little evidence to support their efficacy as homeopathy does for itself.

    It’s amusing when one realises that many of those “therapies” contradict each other, each insisting it is the one true way to encompass health, whilst none of them provide supporting evidence in one way or another.

    It doesn’t help that most of those “therapies” have been invented since the term “allopathy”, but are still encompassed by “allopathy”.

    Like

  316. Meanings of words adapt, Stuartg.

    Osteopathic describes the school where you learn conventional medicine in association with non-drug pain relief of musculoskeletal manipulation. That is more than just putting a shoulder back in its socket that MDs might learn in what is called their “allopathic” course now.
    In North America “momentarily” has quite recently come to mean ” in a few moments.”
    And please check these words. Maybe the original meanings of some are similar vintage to Hahnemann.
    http://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/

    Like

  317. Homeopathy grew out of a time when conventional medicine was not much use often. Hahnemann learned to treat like with like. But I suggest he would be coping with something like a vaccination, getting the immune system to work. If you give too much live vaccine the patient will catch the disease in it. He found that, “less is more.”

    Some of the diseases of the day were problematic. It would not take much to contract cholera. At extreme dilutions you shouldn’t catch it. The homeopath’s trade was to work out how dilute to be just to trigger the body’s defenses without hurting it more.

    Do antibiotics work in countries where they are over-the-counter?
    I think resistance develops to them too fast. Should fusidic acid be OTC? Keep it for flesh eating bacteria more.

    If you wish to check homeopathy please do it in proper conditions, not just like laymen prescribing antibiotics which does nto work either does it?

    But I don’t use homeopathy.

    I don’t drink much coffee either and sometimes find it fun to ask for a drop or two from someone else’s cup in a cup of hot water.

    Like

  318. soundhill,

    Homeopathy has had two hundred years to prove it works. It hasn’t.

    “Homeopathy grew out of a time…” No. It never grew. It was invented whole by Hahnemann. It hasn’t changed since. The only growth in homeopathy in two hundred years has been the development of large companies, such as Hyland’s and Boiron, to sell snake oil to marks.

    Hahnemann invented a derisive term – “allopathy” – to express his contempt for any form of treatment that wasn’t his fantasy invention of homeopathy. The term is still used by his followers without any change in its meaning. http://www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/allopathy.html

    “Meanings of words adapt” – sure, but only if they have the opportunity to adapt. The archaic word “allopathy” has never had the opportunity to adapt since it has never been adopted by anyone other than homeopaths, who, as we know, never challenge Hahnemann’s fantasies.

    Like

  319. soundhill,

    “If you wish to check homeopathy…”

    Your lack of knowledge about science is exposing itself again.

    Homeopaths say that homeopathy works. So it’s up to them to prove it. No-one else. The person making the claim always bears the burden of proof. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/09/27/dont-tell-people-to-google-it-thats-your-job-not-theirs

    So, soundhill, if you make a statement, it’s up to you to provide the proof. It’s not up to anyone else.

    I do wish you would take that high school science class.

    Like

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s