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

 

622 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

  320. Stuartg, same thing with antibiotics. I am not saying it to be the same mechanism. Everyone claiming antibiotics work. Even doctors prescribing for their patients just in case. For the individual they may make the correct decision but collectively they are loading up the common resource with growing drug resistance. And the use of them for growth promotion in animals. And the antibiotic resistance markers in GMO plants which only have to horizontally transfer in one cell under selection pressure and them multiply.

    So you might have proved to me that penicillin worked for all gonorrhea when you started your training. Now you can’t, partly because the pool of the commons has not been respected.

    From a slightly different angle homeopathy being used without the care and insight won’t be proven to work either.

    Like

  321. “grew out of a time” “was originated in a time.”
    Expression change a lot. Bad words like “bugger” become quite friendly.

    Even in 1999: “there is a clear trend of increased use of the term among main-stream physicians”

    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=210204

    Mercola has described ostepathic medicine as more aimed at looking at the whole person and underlying conditions than just attacking a particular disease.

    My recent comment cited how AMA was suppressing nutrition education. It would have had to creep in with diabetes. There may have been something about rickets? But did you learn about pre-clinical pellagra and also deficiency of sulphur containing amino acids? Did you learn the inflammatory nature of omega 6 fatty acids and the increase with respect to omega 3 in diets? Or did you just learn to prescribe more anti-inflammatory drugs?

    Like

  322. soundhill,

    Homeopaths have had two hundred years to demonstrate that homeopathy works. They haven’t managed to do so.

    If anyone would be expected to use care and insight in homeopathy, it would be homeopaths themselves.

    You appear to be saying that for two hundred years homeopaths haven’t been using care and insight.

    Like

  323. soundhill,

    “Expressions change a lot.”

    But not the meaning of “allopathy”. To do so would mean that homeopaths were questioning Hahnemann’s gospel. And they never do that.

    You mentioned that “allopathic” is being used on PubMed, and believe this to mean the term is in increasing use by people who aren’t homeopaths.

    Care to tell us if those papers are being written by homeopaths?

    Then, to demonstrate exactly how commonly papers on PubMed mention allopathy, tell us how many papers on PubMed are about medicine.

    Aw, heck, I just can’t resist it: “allopathy”=71, “allopathic”=1224, “medicine”=4319742. And that’s the evidence that you suggest shows increasing general usage of “allopathy” and even “allopathic” outside of homeopathy?

    I gave you the history of the word: “allopathy” – an archaic word, invented by Hahnemann two hundred years ago to express his derision towards any treatment that was not his fantasy creation of homeopathy. Currently the word seems to be only used by homeopaths, still with its original meaning. Reference already provided.

    Nothing you have blustered on about has changed that history or meaning.

    Like

  324. “Homeopaths say that homeopathy works.”

    “The British Royal Family has been known for being exceedingly conservative and embodying traditional ideals of family and public service, but they are also known to have special appreciation and even advocacy for certain unconventional treatments that really worked, whether conventional medicine accepted them or not. Such were their experiences with Mr. Logue’s speech therapy and the respected and widely practiced, but often misunderstood science and art of homeopathic medicine.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/the-kings-homeopath_b_827499.html

    Like

  325. Stuartg: “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.”

    This one is comparing fluoxetine and placebo, and also comparing homeopathy and placebo for depression at the menopause.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118440

    Like

  326. If I read this correctly young children seem to need less antibiotics if given homeopathic treatment for ear or upper respiratory trouble.
    http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(15)00121-6/abstract

    Like

  327. Stuartg: “Aw, heck, I just can’t resist it: “allopathy”=71, “allopathic”=1224, “medicine”=4319742. And that’s the evidence that you suggest shows increasing general usage of “allopathy” and even “allopathic” outside of homeopathy?”

    No please read again my Oct 1 12:28pm comment where I quoted an MD writing in 1998, as seen in the link.

    Also see the term here:
    http://www.careerjunkie.com/allopathic-medical-schools-united-states

    They also suggest that allopathic schools provide more prestige leading on to single organ medicine. Osteopathic medicine schools are better for the wide range approach needed for family medicine.

    In UK, homeopathy institutions have changed name to “integrative medicine.”

    With every illness there is need to find the best approach for treatment.
    So “integrative medicine” doctors can use homeopathy if they feel it to be appropriate for a condition.

    If antibiotic resistance increases or say candida become resistant to itraconazole then maybe homeopathy would be better than nothing. Some of the stronger drugs may damage hearing.

    Like

  328. soundhill,

    Homeopaths say that homeopathy works. So it’s up to them to prove it. They’ve had two hundred years and haven’t proved it yet.

    Science says that for homeopathy to work would require physics to be overtired. If homeopathy worked, then your computer would not be able to.

    It’s not science’s job to disprove homeopathy and Mercola, it’s for them to provide the proof. Which they don’t…

    Like

  329. soundhill,

    Hmmm…

    One hundred and thirty three patients, obtained by publicity, treated for six weeks when recommended treatment time is a minimum of six months. Published in a Chinese journal.

    (I wonder why Mexican researchers would choose to publish in a Chinese journal?)

    Nope, that doesn’t show that homeopathy works, either.

    Like

  330. soundhill,

    But keep those citations coming…

    You’re keeping well on topic – impressing the naive with citations!

    Like

  331. soundhill,

    “Career Junkie” web site: didn’t you read their “get-out-of-jail-free” warning?

    “This information is extrapolated…” …in other words they haven’t checked.

    Carrying on with impressing the naive with citations?

    Like

  332. soundhill,

    Homeopathy Journal? Are you serious?

    Comparing homeopathy to antibiotics in children? In a self limiting condition? A self limiting condition where antibiotics are not indicated?

    Get real. If those “researchers” actually are registered medical practitioners, they should be taken before their medical council.

    Nevertheless, still trying to impress the naive with citations, I see.

    Like

  333. soundhill,

    And as for using Huffington Post as a citation…

    Do you seriously believe that the Royal Family has the time, or inclination, to keep up to date with medical research?

    Do you seriously believe the person who wrote that piece has any education in science?

    Although, come to think about it, you think you do. But then that’s the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

    Like

  334. “Comparing homeopathy to antibiotics in children? In a self limiting condition? A self limiting condition where antibiotics are not indicated?”
    Acute Otitis Media can lead on to deafness through one or more mechanisms. It used to often progress to a need for an operation to free up the tiny hearing bones. Or removal of the mastoid with followup need for a bone conduction hearing aid.

    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2056657-treatment
    Upper respiratory infection can be severe and lead to restriction of the ability to breathe. Before penicillin, sulfa drugs used to be used which themselves could cause allergy and make it harder to breathe.

    The ear trouble and chest trouble “self-limited” better if homeopathy were used.

    When I said “need less antibiotics,” I’m sorry I should have said, “need antibiotics less.”

    Like

  335. Just because PLOS is the People’s Library of Science” does not connect it to the People’s Republic of China.

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

    Stuartg: “One hundred and thirty three patients, obtained by publicity, treated for six weeks when recommended treatment time is a minimum of six months. Published in a Chinese journal.”

    Trial subjects are normally or at least often obtained by publicity.

    Do you prescribe treatment to go on for 6 months even after early remission?

    Since fluoxetine has a risk of the side effect of suicidal ideation it is better not to use it if avoidable. Depression may not remit on it. If it does it will not remit in everyone after the same duration.

    Depression remitted faster on fluoxetine than on placebo, but as I read it even faster when on homeopathic remedy.

    Like

  336. Sorry “Public Library of Science.”

    Stuartg: “treated for six weeks when recommended treatment time is a minimum of six months.”

    It doesn’t say anything about whether treatment were discontinued at 6 weeks. It is just an assessment at 6 weeks of how they are progressing.
    How frequently would you check up on how a patient is doing on fluoxetine? I suppose if they are doing OK you are worried about withdrawal symptoms if you stop it. And the study did not say it was stopped, did it?

    I don’t know about whether homeopathic treatment would be discontinued after remission.

    Like

  337. Stuartg: “Do you seriously believe that the Royal Family has the time, or inclination, to keep up to date with medical research?”

    They want the best treatment. Their advisors would research for them.

    Now the London Homeopathic Hospital has changed to integrative medicine I think there would really be no difference. Practitioners will have always looked for appropriate treatments. If they think homeopathy would be the best they will use it.

    A problem in NZ with osteopaths or homeopaths, I hypothesize, is in a system where patient as opposed to state pay practitioners, they may want to hold on to patients even when their treatment is not the appropriate one, God forbid. USA doctors from osteopathic medicine colleges are able to decide on antibiotics where necessary without losing the patient.

    Like

  338. soundhill,

    It doesn’t matter whether your researchers carried on treating depression past six weeks. By only reporting to six weeks, the results they publish are exactly the same as if they stopped at six weeks.

    Perhaps you could actually learn what you are talking about before putting your foot in it? http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/dlp/treating-depression/treating-depression-what-treatment-actually-works/ “Depression medication, typically, has to be taken for 6 weeks before it is known if it is effective or not, and then continued for 6 months.”

    http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/depression/q2/en/ “In adult individuals with depressive episode/disorders who have benefited from initial antidepressant treatment, the antidepressant treatment should not be stopped before 9 -12 months after recovery.”

    http://www.uptodate.com/contents/depression-treatment-options-for-adults-beyond-the-basics “it can take 6 to 12 weeks to see the full effect of an antidepressant, so healthcare providers generally wait that long to determine whether a particular medication or dose is effective”

    But well done for trying to impress by posting irrelevant citations.

    Like

  339. Stuartg: “Depression medication, typically, has to be taken for 6 weeks before it is known if it is effective or not, and then continued for 6 months.”

    The experiment reported the checking at 6 weeks.

    Like

  340. soundhill,

    Did you even bother to read your citation from Homeopathy Journal? “These studies were done to determine if homeopathic preparations are useful in the treatment of URI’s in children, especially when there are no conventional treatments available and/or antibiotics are to be avoided. ”

    Let me repeat that: “…no conventional treatments available and/or antibiotics are to be avoided”.

    They are trialing homeopathy against antibiotics when antibiotics are not indicated. They say so themselves.

    Is this the sort of “care and insight” that you were saying needs to be used in trials of homeopathy?

    Again, a good example of an irrelevant citation being used by yourself to impress the naive.

    Like

  341. Stuartg: “Let me repeat that: “…no conventional treatments available and/or antibiotics are to be avoided”.

    They are trialing homeopathy against antibiotics when antibiotics are not indicated. They say so themselves.”

    No it would be (a) about growing drug resistance of infections: avoid antibiotics if you can to avoid general population resistance growing, and where it has already occurred homeopathy might be used
    (b) where there is known intolerance to the drugs.

    Like

  342. The word “junkie” refers to someone who is addicted. It has been applied to recreational drug takers especially non-alcoholic drugs. But now it is being used to mean someone who is addicted to anything, perhaps like us to Openparachute.

    “Career junkie” just means someone who is very engrossed in searching careers.

    Words do change. Like “extrapolate.” You may have first learned it in maths education where a graph is extended beyond the data you have. These people might have used the word “extracted” instead. But that would not imply all they have done, which is more than extraction: it is gathering together all the extracted data to present a picture for readers to go on from.

    I can’t see the “get-out-of-jail-free” expression. It is an expression coined from the game of Monopoly where you do not lose a turn. Could be meaning in this case don’t choose the wrong type of medical school and lose your years of study doing what you don’t really want to do. This page could help you, so.

    Like

  343. Stuartg: “Homeopathy Journal? Are you serious?”

    If it be about homeopathy why not publish the results in a homeopathy journal?
    The trial is also on Clinicaltrials.gov A service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

    Some of these may be about “integrative medicine” rather than “potentised” homeopathic remedies.
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=homeopathic&Search=Search

    I do note that a lot are not written up yet/do not have results pages, so indeed (a) publication bias may be occurring
    (b) we are seeing a picture of “homeopaths” developing their career paths in finding out when their treatments are appropriate.

    Like

  344. Stuartg: “Science says that for homeopathy to work would require physics to be overtired. If homeopathy worked, then your computer would not be able to.”

    If more of those clinical trials get written up it may be interesting to check whether liquid-based remedies that may be subjected to further “succussion,” or jolting, have any different effect from powder-based ones.

    It could be hypothesised that administering a homeopathic remedy is intended to send a message to the immune system.

    Vaccines educate the immune system.

    Works of art may affect the beholder even when the artist is not present.

    One way of thinking about a liquid homeopathic remedy is that it may be like a work of art left in the liquid.

    Maybe there is a lot about water that your or my science does not encompass yet.

    Here are some hints:
    https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwit1aerg7vPAhWCKJQKHT2yA1kQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iiste.org%2FJournals%2Findex.php%2FJHMN%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F21561%2F21808&usg=AFQjCNHF7nw_V9RLjStBCdDDzk5vkpacpw&sig2=XGuP7KI1oYGCAJiQRe2MMg&bvm=bv.134495766,d.dGo

    After all tree bark and aspirin were used before knowing the intracies of how they work.

    Like

  345. So unlike quacks, homeopaths are making serious attempts to find in controlled trials when their treatments are appropriate.

    Conventional doctors are not frequently enough questioning about the appropriateness of their treatments when other causes such as poor nutrition, food intolerance, muscular relaxation through pressure on nerve plexes (one means of osteopathy) could be better used to avoid side effects of drugs and the loss of their potency as resistant strains develop.

    Vaccines work with the body’s immune system, but it can also work better if the correct nutrients are present. I wrote before about how mistaken science affected scurvy on Scott’s journey in the Antarctic.

    In my view and in the view of many others, suppressing nutritional though is real quackery when it results in more drugs being prescribed.

    Mercola is not a quack. He is working for public health and unfortunately has to often be against conventional medicine to do that.

    Like

  346. soundhill,

    “These studies were done to determine if homeopathic preparations are useful … when there are no conventional treatments available and/or antibiotics are to be avoided. ”

    When a paper is written, it is reviewed and edited many times. The final result is exactly what the author(s) want to say. No interpretation is necessary: here is the data and this is our interpretation of it.

    You may live in a fantasy world of conspiracy theory, but that’s no reason to assume that others do so, or that they conceal hidden meanings behind everything they write.

    The authors tell you they compared homeopathy against antibiotics when antibiotics were not indicated. No amount of argument will ever change that.

    You didn’t understand my “get-out-of-jail-free” reference? Very well, I meant the small print that said anything on their web site could be wrong and can’t be trusted; don’t bother suing because we’ve warned you. You probably know it as the term “Disclaimer” since your idol Mercola uses a similar one on his web site to try keep him out of trouble. So does GreenMedInfo: “Probably the truest statement on the (GreenMedInfo) website is the disclaimer at the bottom: “This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.”” Or maybe you are more aware of the “Quack Miranda Warning” that quacks like Mercola place on each container of things they sell. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quack_Miranda_Warning

    Is that clearer?

    Like

  347. soundhill,

    “So unlike quacks, homeopaths are making serious attempts to find in controlled trials when their treatments are appropriate”.

    Two hundred years without managing to show that their treatments are effective? How is that a serious attempt?

    Aspirin has been in use for about half the length of time that homeopathy has, it took only a couple of years to demonstrate that it worked as an analgesics. Even today we are finding more and more ways in which aspirin is effective.

    Homeopathy has still to demonstrate any effects other than lightening of the wallet.

    Like

  348. soundhill,

    “Maybe there is a lot about water that your or my science does not encompass yet.”

    Well, at least you’ve acknowledged that your science is different to everyone else’s.

    You really should take some high school classes in science as a starter.

    p.s. in over 99% of homeopathic remedies, the water is dropped onto a sugar pill and then evaporates. The “patient”, or more accurately “mark”, doesn’t even get the water.

    Like

  349. StuartgL “Get real. If those “researchers” actually are registered medical practitioners, they should be taken before their medical council.”

    Silly if there were anything wrong ethically about this study it could not have been registered at Clinical Trials . gov.

    Your interpretation is funny.

    Like

  350. soundhill,

    Clinical trials.gov is a register.

    Perhaps you could learn what a register is, what an ethical review process is, and how and why the two differ in the real world.

    Maybe you could even tell us the ethical review process that your homeopathy article went through?

    Like

  351. Stuartg: “Perhaps you could learn what a register is, what an ethical review process is, and how and why the two differ in the real world.

    Maybe you could even tell us the ethical review process that your homeopathy article went through?”

    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-studies/learn

    “How Are Participants Protected?”
    “Institutional review boards. Each federally supported or conducted clinical study and each study of a drug, biological product, or medical device regulated by FDA must be reviewed, approved, and monitored by an institutional review board (IRB). An IRB is made up of doctors, researchers, and members of the community. Its role is to make sure that the study is ethical and that the rights and welfare of participants are protected. This includes making sure that research risks are minimized and are reasonable in relation to any potential benefits, among other responsibilities. The IRB also reviews the informed consent document. “

    Like

  352. soundhill,

    Clinicaltrials.gov is a register.

    It’s not an IRB.

    Learn the difference.

    Maybe you could let us know the specific ethical review process your homeopathy article went through? You know, naming the IRB, etc.

    Like

  353. Stuartg: “Clinicaltrials.gov is a register.

    It’s not an IRB.

    Learn the difference.”

    To have a clinical trial on the register and get subjects it has to go first go to an Institutional Review Board.

    Indeed the IRB is not the register. But they are part of the registration process.

    If it gets on to the register therefore it it must have been accepted by the IRB therefore it must be ethical.

    Like

  354. Stuartg I am trying to find about the reviewing but here are teh bios of the authors:
    http://depts.washington.edu/epidem/faculty/Jacobs-Jennifer
    http://www.uwmedicine.org/bios/james-taylor

    Like

  355. Stuartg: “Comparing homeopathy to antibiotics in children? In a self limiting condition? A self limiting condition where antibiotics are not indicated?”

    Reading carefully it was only the middle ear infection for which antibiotics were involved. A prescription for antibiotics was given when the child was diagnosed with middle ear infection. But the instruction was to delay picking it up unless condition did not improve. This part of the study was not comparing homeopathics against placebo so it may have been a placebo effect which resulted in fewer of the prescriptions being picked up by those who got the drops.

    However Taylor’s colleague had previously found as reported in another journal:
    “Jacobs et al conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of an individually prescribed homeopathic remedy, administered orally, to placebo in reducing symptoms in 75 children with AOM.10 Parents completed symptom diaries 3 times each day for 3 days after the study visit using a numeric scale for each measured symptom. Overall symptoms were decreased in those randomized to the homeopathic remedy compared with placebo recipients, with statistically significant differences noted at 24 hours and 64 hours after the index visit.”
    http://gph.sagepub.com/content/1/2333794X14559395.full

    Stuartg wrote: “The authors tell you they compared homeopathy against antibiotics when antibiotics were not indicated. No amount of argument will ever change that.”

    Do you see your mistake now?

    “These studies were done to determine if homeopathic preparations are useful in the treatment of URI’s in children, especially when there are no conventional treatments available and/or antibiotics are to be avoided. ”

    As you said Stuartg, with the URI illness being self limiting no antibiotic is prescribed for URI and was not prescribed. But the homeopathic remedy helped the children. And the URI study was placebo controlled.

    With the ear study it was not about whether a homeopathic remedy were useful, even though one was used, because it might have been a placebo effect.

    The URI study I say again was for when no conventional treatment or antibiotic is available and none were prescribed.

    The ear study was about when antibiotics are to be avoided.

    Another quote from the same URL:

    “In 2004, the American Academy of Publications published a guideline on the diagnosis and management of otitis media in children, which was updated in 2013.1,2 A major goal of the guideline is to promote the judicious use of antibiotics by using a standardized approach to diagnosis and treatment. Specific clinical criteria are provided for the option of a delayed antibiotic approach in which the parent is given a prescription for antibiotics to fill only if the child’s condition deteriorates or does not improve over the following 2 to 3 days.1,2 In addition, the guideline includes advice on reducing otalgia, both for the comfort of the child and to avoid the use of unnecessary antibiotics.”

    So Taylor’s ear study was about that delayed antibiotic approach. The parents did not realise whether they picked up the antibiotics was the measure of how well just waiting for improvement was successful or whether trying the drops made any difference. But they were told it was about whether the drops made any difference.

    Like

  356. Stuartg will get very excited about this I am sure.

    (1) The URI and AOM paper I referred to was actually an “abstract” from the Rome 2015 Homeopathy conference. And I feel the colon in “Homeopathic treatment of respiratory illnesses in children: results from two randomized trials” would have better been a semicolon.
    (2) I found that conference abstract when searching for full articles of the authors of “completed” clinicaltrials.gov studies. But it was not one, sorry.

    I took the most recent, but Jennifer Jacobs was it seems describing hers and
    James Taylor’s earlier work for this second HRI Research Conference.

    Like

  357. soundhill,

    If any research goes before an IRB, then that process is detailed in the paper publishing the research. I find it rather telling that you were unaware of that, and that you can’t find mention of an IRB within the paper but have to look elsewhere.

    You say the science in your fantasy world is different to that of the rest of the world. Fine, I can accept that. Ultimately though, your reliance on fantasy for your beliefs means that you can’t understand how the real world works. By using fantasy, you also can’t, or won’t, understand how wrong your beliefs are – and thus you demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

    May I recommend a book to you about how science really works? Bad Science, by Ben Goldacre. You probably won’t read it, but it’s one that you should. To whet your whistle, it’s by a doctor who doesn’t like the crap that can be published in the name of medicine and pharmacology. You would learn something – but then maybe you don’t want to?

    Like

  358. “Ben Goldacre. You probably won’t read it, but it’s one that you should. To whet your whistle, it’s by a doctor who doesn’t like the crap that can be published in the name of medicine and pharmacology.”

    a. Is it free of emotive talk?
    b. Is it avoiding attempts to key in intuitive response?

    Like

  359. Stuartg now you accept the URI study did not involve conventional medication which you were claiming would be unethical to use do you still ask for review board information?

    Like

  360. soundhill,

    “now you accept the URI study did not involve conventional medication…”

    Is your fantasy world intruding into reality again? Show me where I said that.

    And then perhaps you could explain how, other than by fantasising, you have concluded that the study “did not involve conventional medication” when the authors clearly state: “The primary outcome was whether or not an antibiotic prescription given at the index visit was filled”. Even in the abstract, the authors clearly tell us that every child in the study was given a prescription for antibiotics, and that this prescription was given to treat a self limiting condition for which antibiotics are not indicated.

    That’s probably why you can’t find a reference to an IRB approval for the study – the ethics of giving a child any medications when they are not indicated is highly questionable. The homeopaths involved in this study appear to have completely ignored the ethical implications.

    Like

  361. Stuartg Jennifer Jacobs presentation record (it was not a paper abstract) in the journal Homeopathy referred to earlier work. It describes two separate experiments (they are in different years to each other)

    The ear work with James Taylor involved the MD prescribing antibiotics to be used after a delay if the ear trouble was not improving or getting worse.

    At first reading the presentation record could be taken to mean antibiotics were prescribed for both expermients. But no. As you say they are not recommended for upper respiratory infection and none were prescribed for the second experiment, and the point of the second experiment is whether homeopathy can reduce the duration of the URI for which antibiotics are not used.

    Like

  362. soundhill,

    Nice to know you have actually read your citation at last.

    You’ve finally acknowledged that it doesn’t say what you claimed in your fantasies.

    p.s. “it was not a paper abstract” – if so, perhaps you could explain why the journal decided to call it an abstract?
    “http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/…/ABSTRACT”

    First rule of citations: before you use a citation, make sure that you have read all of it and that you understand all of what it says. Otherwise, you just look like an idiot.

    Like

  363. Stuartg: “Nice to know you have actually read your citation at last.

    You’ve finally acknowledged that it doesn’t say what you claimed in your fantasies.”

    Yes as I said before I saw “completed” homeopathic studies in ClinicalTrials.gov and looked the authors on Scholar to find the papers. I got the menopause depression paper correct, but this oral presentation seems to be the best result reporting of the Clinicaltrials URI study, presented at the same time as the AOM study which however was written up in a journal and I gave that ref.

    Sometimes workers can offer value though they may not be the best computer savvy types. The journal “Homeopathy” appear to have tried to adapt the normal journal software used for articles for reporting what happened at the conference. I note that clicking the “Abstract” button or the “Full article” button makes no difference for these “conference abstracts” as the reports of the conference are called.
    http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/issue/S1475-4916(15)X0005-1?page=0

    Going to the “abstracts” see the words “Abstracts – Oral presentations” heading each page.

    If you think about it it would be unusual for a journal to print what we normally think of as abstracts without the actual articles following. We read so many google searches that we get used to seeing abstracts without the articles. but here we are in the journal.

    Workers in the homeopathy field seem to be making attempts to prove their remedies. I believe they are seriously trying to help and should not be called “quacks,” which term would better be reserved for a doctor who knows he is just in it for the money and is setting out to be dishonest.

    On a Youtube video Dr Jennifer Jacobs reported a how when a blinded study appeared to support homeopathic treatment of diarrhoea the journal “Pediatrics” decided to publish the study. For doing that the editor nearly lost his job, and then the journal published a non-peer-reviewed guest editorial attacking homeopathy: an extremely unusual occurrence.

    Like

  364. If you be thinking about trying to be purchasing one of the whole article for these “Conference – abstracts,” please note that the page numbers that you would pay for are the pages that you are already reading. I suggest it is difficulty of the editor with using the software.

    Now I am thinking there are some free articles and just abstracts for others, but not in the conference section of this edition. So it is a bit unusual.

    Like

  365. Maybe I am wrong in my 3:51am comment, however EBSCO gives:

    “Detailed Record

    Title:
    Homeopathic treatment of respiratory illnesses in children: results from two randomized trials
    Authors:
    Taylor, James A.
    Jacobs, Jennifer
    Source:
    Homeopathy; February 2016, Vol. 105 Issue: Number 1 p15-15, 1p
    ISSN:
    14754916; 14764245
    Entry Date:
    20160129
    LC Classification:
    20170; 10016
    Accession Number:
    37904146”

    That is only page 15, which we already had. I suppose something else might appear if you pay, but normally journal page numbers would appear for it so you would know how many beforehand.

    Going to the homeopaty conference page it is possible to pay some 6 pounds to watch the presentation. But my secure browser won’t play videos.

    Like

  366. Actually, soundhill, because I’m a scientist, I made the assumption that you were citing a paper. It did indeed look like the abstract to a paper, but I wasn’t prepared to fork out for the full thing. Instead you now say that what you cited was a conference presentation.

    (Sighs) Why doesn’t that surprise me?

    After all, you told us that your idea of science is different to the rest of the world. So, obviously, is your idea of a citation – no scientist would cite something so preliminary, with no data tables, no evidence, no randomisation methods, no methods, no IRB, no discussion, no references, no peer review… and even then still fantasise that it says things directly contradicted by the text.

    Read back over what you have said. You sure invented a heck of a lot of things that weren’t mentioned in those few paragraphs. Anyone would have thought you had paid to read a full paper; instead your comments now seem to be entirely fantasy.

    So, your citation wasn’t one. Still, I guess it fits with the thread title.

    Like

  367. “I made the assumption that you were citing a paper. It did indeed look like the abstract to a paper, but I wasn’t prepared to fork out for the full thing. Instead you now say that what you cited was a conference presentation.”

    If you were a scientist you ought to have seen the header on each pagte:

    “Abstracts – Oral presentations”
    It cost 3 pounds to watch the presentation. She only went through the ear part which I linked on October 4, 2016 at 2:17 am.

    It was not a placebo controlled study. As Jennifer said the reduction of need for conventional drugs could have resulted from the soothing effect of the base substance of the homeopathic drops, or else just placebo.

    Research is progressing. The researchers are proper. There may be publication bias as in any field.

    Don’t forget the menopause/depression experiment which you stopped responding about.

    If a conventional drug is 15% better than placebo and a homeopathic remedy not much better that could mean 55% response as against 70%.
    But if it saves antibiotics from overuse and so loss of their potency then it has to be considered. The response rate for anitbiotics is dropping.

    So I maintain homeopathy is ethical to try, and not quackery.

    Have you noted how some drugs produce a result before science says they have time to be absorbed?

    Like

  368. soundhill,

    So, you think an appropriate citation, to prove that homeopathy works, is an oral presentation at a conference.

    As Ken said – impressing the naive with citations.

    As for “stopped responding about”, the last thing I posted was trying to teach you a little about depression, a subject about which it was obvious that you knew very little other than the name:
    http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/dlp/treating-depression/treating-depression-what-treatment-actually-works/
    http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/depression/q2/en/
    http://www.uptodate.com/contents/depression-treatment-options-for-adults-beyond-the-basics
    Since then you’ve made no new or intelligible comments on the subject. Read back if you don’t believe me. Your fantasy world is intruding on reality again.

    In any case, a paper comparing elaborate placebo (homeopathy) versus placebo versus fluoxetine, where women with illness for which fluoxetine is indicated were specifically excluded, is hardly proof that homeopathy (or even fluoxetine!) works.

    Again – impressing the naive with citations.

    Like

  369. soundhill,

    “Have you noted how some drugs produce a result before science says they have time to be absorbed?”

    No.

    And I resent your implication that I am a criminal. The law in New Zealand prevents me, and everyone else in the country, from both using and supplying drugs. I suggest that you learn the difference between medications and drugs in New Zealand.

    Like

  370. I wrote: “Have you noted how some drugs produce a result before science says they have time to be absorbed?”

    Stuartg wrote: “No. ”

    I suppose you prescribe and are not there to note it when the patient takes the pill.

    Aspirin would take 5 to 20 minutes to be absorbed, but if people expect to feel better after taking it they may do so sooner than that.

    Like

  371. Stuartg: “I suggest that you learn the difference between medications and drugs in New Zealand.”

    I suppose a drug is a medication when it is used to treat or prevent a disease.

    http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/searchResults.asp?q=drug

    Like

  372. Stuartg: “Since then you’ve made no new or intelligible comments on the subject”
    The experiment was only about 6-week check-up results which should be part of all depression treatments, shouldn’t they?

    Stuartg: “In any case, a paper comparing elaborate placebo (homeopathy) versus placebo versus fluoxetine, where women with illness for which fluoxetine is indicated were specifically excluded, is hardly proof that homeopathy (or even fluoxetine!) works.”

    from the paper: “Exclusion criteria included: (1) pregnancy or breastfeeding; (2) other psychiatric disorders different from moderate to severe depression (severe depression, schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, bipolar affective disorders, suicide attempt); (3) alcohol or other substance abuse; (4) known allergy to fluoxetine; (5) cancer or hepatic diseases.”

    Do you think fluoxetine to be an effective treatment for severe depression?

    Like

  373. soundhill,

    Indications for fluoxetine: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/4006B1_05_Prozac-Label.pdf “Major Depressive Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Bulimia Nervosa, Panic Disorder” – no other indications listed.

    From the paper: “Exclusion criteria … (2) other psychiatric disorders different from moderate to severe depression…” – which excludes all four indications for fluoxetine!

    So the authors of this study were using fluoxetine off label.

    They also finished their study at six weeks. But “it can take 6 to 12 weeks to see the full effect of an antidepressant, so healthcare providers generally wait that long to determine whether a particular medication or dose is effective”. This means they didn’t follow patients for long enough to determine whether any antidepressant was effective.

    They also used the lowest dose of fluoxetine.

    In other words, a study of homeopathy against off-label use of low dose fluoxetine, for which the study duration was not long enough to determine whether fluoxetine actually had any effect. And you think this citation is proof that homeopathy works?

    As I said, impressing the naive with citations.

    Like

  374. soundhill,

    “Aspirin would take 5 to 20 minutes to be absorbed” [citation required]

    We expect aspirin absorption to take up to a few hours these days. The most frequently prescribed form of aspirin today is enteric coated – designed to be absorbed a long time after it has passed through the stomach in order to minimise local side effects (such as COX-1 blocking of prostaglandin mediated mucus secretion).

    http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/clinical-pharmacology/pharmacokinetics/drug-absorption

    Absorption times for drugs, medications, food, alcohol, water, etc vary with many factors.

    Like

  375. Stuartg you cited a USA review over 20 years old.

    You like the NZ stuff:

    Medsafe Prozac: “Most medicines of this type take time
    to work so don’t be discouraged if you
    do not feel better right away. While
    some symptoms will be relieved sooner
    than others, PROZAC commonly takes
    two to four weeks before improvement
    is really apparent.”

    And please remember this study is about menopause, the depression near it, probably the women feeling anxious about loss of fertility, and dealing with hormonal changes. Your ref says nothig about menopause.

    The treatment of the women didn’t have to stop at 6 weeks. This was just the 6 week checkup.

    Are you implying that how well a patient does at 6 weeks has little to do with average response?

    And you want to use that argument to suppress these 6-week benefits?:

    “Results

    After a 6-week treatment, homeopathic group was more effective than placebo by 5 points in Hamilton Scale. Response rate was 54.5% and remission rate, 15.9%. There was a significant difference among groups in response rate definition only, but not in remission rate. Fluoxetine-placebo difference was 3.2 points. No differences were observed among groups in the Beck Depression Inventory. Homeopathic group was superior to placebo in Greene Climacteric Scale (8.6 points). Fluoxetine was not different from placebo in Greene Climacteric Scale.”

    My idea is to suggest that homeopathy may have uses, not that it be a total substitute.

    What do you think of prescribing antidepressants for people feeling grief at death of a family member? I think feelings are meant to be felt as part of the healing process. So I suggest something which can help a person deal with the natural process could be good rather than blotting it out by bending the hormones.

    Like

  376. “We expect aspirin absorption to take up to a few hours these days.”

    The doctor still inside a few hours will mostly not see the patient to note if a placebo improvement be happening.
    From your ref placebo is a strong contender in the quartile getting minimal improvement and in that quartile it’s hardly making any difference how much Prozac is taken. Please balance that against side effects.

    “Outcome Classification (%) on CGI Improvement Scale for
    Completers in Pool of Two OCD Studies
    Prozac
    Placebo
    20 mg
    40 mg
    60 mg
    Worse
    8%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    No Change
    64%
    41%
    33%
    29%
    Minimally Improved
    17%
    23%
    28%
    24%
    Much Improved
    8%
    28%
    27%
    28%
    Very Much Improved
    3%
    8%
    12%
    19%

    Like

  377. soundhill,

    Unlike yourself, I’m implying nothing. I suggest that you read what I am stating.

    Your citation reported its final results at six weeks. It doesn’t matter if they continued treatment for longer or not – they still reported at six weeks. It takes six to twelve weeks to know if fluoxetine is effective, so they reported before they were able to document any effectiveness of fluoxetine.

    (And, as I cited above, treatment with fluoxetine for major depression is recommended to continue for 9-12 months after resolution of symptoms – we don’t know if they continued or not)

    They used the minimum dose possible in the treatment arm, not allowing any increases in dosage for fluoxetine (although homeopaths could argue that made it a stronger dose… the more dilute the more effective and other such magical thinking by Hahnemann and his worshippers)

    They excluded from the research anyone for whom fluoxetine was actually indicated, instead they used fluoxetine off label.

    So, minimum dose for fluoxetine, insufficient time to tell if fluoxetine was effective, using fluoxetine off label… This looks like careful planning to ensure no positive results are possible from the active treatment arm.

    This is cargo cult science – all the appearance of science but none of the reality.

    And you fantasise that this citation of yours proves that homeopathy works?

    Truly, this is impressing the naive with (useless) citations.

    Like

  378. From the NZ Formulary about SSRIs: “Only fluoxetine has been shown to have a favourable risk benefit profile in treating depressive illness in children and adolescents in clinical trials [unapproved indication]”

    The Jacobs study was also a clinical trial.

    Like

  379. Sorry I meant the study we are currently discussing was a clinical trial.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118440#sec008

    Like

  380. Stuartg, you asked me to look up Ben Goldacre. Here he is talking about publication bias. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M

    All FDA trials for 12 antidepressants.
    38 positive results, 36 negative results.
    But when it came to publication of the results all 38 positive result trials were published and 3 negative result trials.

    Now as we discussed Jennifer Jacobs has published the result of the homeopathic ear-drop trial, saying it could be just placebo.

    I pointed out that there may be publication bias with the homeopathic studies but would it be worse than for conventional antidepressants?

    Like

  381. soundhill,

    Good to see you having a critical look at your own citations. At last.

    Perhaps it would have been better if you read and critically appraised them before you posted?

    Like

  382. Stuartg my point is that the homeopathic direction is involved in research to find out where it is useful. Just because it is effective only for some things it should not be labelled as quackage.

    The publication bias of conventional medicine’s antidepressants would label it as quackage. Nearly all of the studies which show its failure are suppressed!

    Like

  383. soundhill,

    I didn’t ask you to look up Ben Goldacre – look back if you don’t believe me. I suggested that you read one of his books. You know – use your eyes to obtain information from a paper document purchased from a book shop.

    Now I’ll suggest that you read both “Bad Science” and “Bad Pharma”. They are both available in paperback and have been revised and updated in the years since they were published (2008, 2012 respectively)

    In both of them you’ll find many examples to feed your conspiracist fantasies. You’ll also find examples of how science really works and how pharmaceutical companies can be ethical, neither of which you seem to want to know about.

    Reading the books is much more worthwhile than your looking up and referring to a few minutes of video on YouTube in an attempt to impress the naive with citations.

    In response to your previous questions about “Bad Science”:
    “a. Is it free of emotive talk?
    b. Is it avoiding attempts to key in intuitive response?”
    a. No more or less so than your own postings
    b. No, he frequently discusses intuition

    You talk about publication bias as though it were something new. Well, maybe it is to you, but I’ve been aware of it and allowing for it for several decades now. Read Ben Goldacre – he discusses the effect of publication bias much better in his books than he does on video.

    Like

  384. soundhill,

    “my point is that the homeopathic direction is involved in research to find out where it is useful. Just because it is effective only for some things it should not be labelled as quackage.”

    Homeopathy has been around for over two hundred years. In that time it has not been able to prove that it works for anything at all.

    Saying “it is effective only for some things” is completely wrong. What things? There is nothing for which homeopathy has been proven effective. Nothing. Nil. Zip. Nada. And they’ve been using it for over two hundred years. Surely two hundred years is sufficient time to produce some evidence? Any evidence?

    For comparison, in the time taken for science to go from the Montgolfier brothers through the Camel, Spitfire, Concorde and the A380, to Dragon and the Falcon Heavy, homeopathy has gone from Hahnemann to… Hahnemann. No homeopath is free to challenge their prophet.

    And, as discussed earlier, it’s not up to scientists to prove that homeopathy doesn’t work, it’s up to homeopaths to prove that homeopathy works. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

    Like

  385. “And, as discussed earlier, it’s not up to scientists to prove that homeopathy doesn’t work, it’s up to homeopaths to prove that homeopathy works.”

    When it is placebo that is working, and better than the placebo content of a drug with bad side effects or resistance development.

    And it would not be proof that it works, if like conventional antidepressants, half the studies say it doesn’t and nearly all are suppressed.

    Like

  386. Stuartg: “And, as discussed earlier, it’s not up to scientists to prove that homeopathy doesn’t work, it’s up to homeopaths to prove that homeopathy works”

    I’ve just posted a trial that shows it to be better than placebo at 6 weeks for women affected emotionally by menopause. And actually better than another treatment which also works a bit: Prozac at 6 weeks when NZ Medsafe says Prozac has effects by 4 weeks usually.

    Like

  387. Stuartg: “For comparison, in the time taken for science to go from the Montgolfier brothers through the Camel, Spitfire, Concorde and the A380, to Dragon and the Falcon Heavy,”

    “Science” these days is about perpetuating what has been done, too.
    It used to be very exciting with constant discovery. And it still can be see Facebook “Water Conference” Bulgaria, currently happening.

    Like

  388. soundhill,

    Re-read my comments about that paper.

    Nothing in that paper proves that homeopathy has any more effect than elaborate placebo. Nothing anyone can say will change that.

    Actually, soundhill, re-read the entire thread. You are repeating things to no purpose and even contradicting your own previous comments now.

    Like

  389. Stuartg, the study says: “The administration of IHT (individual homeopathic treatment) during six weeks in climacteric women with moderate to severe depression significantly improved the rate of depression recovery over the treatment interval, as compared to placebo. The fluoxetine group also improved, but the rate of recovery was a little more rapid in the IHT.”

    This was a trial for IHT and for fluoxetine. The aim being to find a treatment for perimenopausal depression.

    You don’t think fluoxetine should have been in a trial because it never had been in one for perimenopausal depression. Or do you now it had already been in one and not approved since of no use?

    I don’t contradict myself. This discussion is a response to critcism of Mercola since he sometimes uses homeopathy. Even if a treatment is sometimes doing no better than placebo, it has to be thought that placebo can be quite good and a small amount of reduction in treatment success comes with the benefit of less conventional medicine side effects, or sometimes less antibiotic resistance which is having consequences for everyone. If you have been in a bed in a hospital near to an entry for an MRSA ward you will get a warning mark on your record for a long time.

    Like

  390. soundhill,

    Placebo is an inert substance with no therapeutic effect that is given during trials. In trials, subjects are aware of what a placebo is and that they may receive one.

    Outside of carefully planned trials, homeopathy is an elaborate placebo, just like Reiki, acupuncture, naturopathy, etc. In over two hundred years, homeopaths have not shown that homeopathy is effective for anything. The best they have shown is equivalence to elaborate placebo.

    If someone tells a patient that homeopathy will effectively treat their illness then they are not telling the truth. Mercola says homeopathy is effective and gives many “explanations” and “reasons” how homeopathy “works”. He also sells homeopathic preparations.

    Do you approve of Mercola telling these lies and selling products that have not been shown to have any effect?

    Like

  391. soundhill,

    “If you have been in a bed in a hospital near to an entry for an MRSA ward you will get a warning mark on your record for a long time.”

    No. There’s no point in me saying anything else when you’ve just demonstrated such a profound lack of knowledge on so many subjects in a single sentence.

    For a citation, try any current textbook on infectious diseases. Before you could understand it, though, you would need to be competent with the scientific method, basic health sciences, microbiology, pharmacology, population health, disease transmission… In other words, those subjects on which you’ve just demonstrated your lack of knowledge.

    Now, before you leap into commenting about MRSA and further demonstrating your lack of knowledge and understanding, don’t forget to answer if you approve of Mercola’s lies.

    Like

  392. soundhill,

    “I don’t contradict myself.”

    Hmm…

    Perhaps you remember earlier in this thread when you stated that you believed that CWF had an action that prevented professional sports teams from playing well? Didn’t you say the effect occurred as an infant? No, you said it happened if CWF was introduced when the team was actually playing and training together. No, it was when CWF present at the person’s birthplace, wasn’t it? No, definitely when they were toddlers. Maybe CWF when they were at primary school? But then I distinctly remember you talking about fluoride having an epigenetic action, telling us the effect of CWF was before conception (but you didn’t narrow it to maternal or paternal gametes, perhaps because no-one asked).

    You said all of those when we were trying to find out from you when you believe that CWF is able to have an effect on sports teams, an effect that you believe is greater than that of the coach and many other factors.

    Tell me, which one of your statements made then wasn’t contradicting yourself? Which was the one that you truly believe in?

    It was an excellent example of you squirming around and trying to avoid providing a simple answer that, although agreeing with science and common sense/intuition, is completely at variance with your beliefs in a conspiracist fantasy world.

    Like

  393. Me: “If you have been in a bed in a hospital near to an entry for an MRSA ward you will get a warning mark on your record for a long time.”

    Stuartg: “No. There’s no point in me saying anything else when you’ve just demonstrated such a profound lack of knowledge on so many subjects in a single sentence.”

    I have known it to happen when they are short of beds.

    Like

  394. Stuartg: “Tell me, which one of your statements made then wasn’t contradicting yourself? Which was the one that you truly believe in?”

    Do you understand confounding, interacting, mediating?

    Like

  395. Styartg: “Outside of carefully planned trials, homeopathy is an elaborate placebo,”
    Does that admit what?

    Like

  396. Here is a progress report on my fluoridation and vision test investigation.

    I obtained from MOH the Before School vision tests results.
    For all ethnicities I selected the fields containing “City.” (It was not included with Auckland)

    I have divided the sum of the fails by the sum of the passes over 6 years.
    I could have made mistakes.

    Porirua City 8.2%
    Palmerston North City 7.5%
    Lower Hutt City 7.4%
    Wellington City 6.6%
    Christchurch City 5.6%
    Napier City 5.5%
    Tauranga City 5.1%
    Upper Hutt City 4.8%
    Invercargill City 4.1%
    Dunedin City 2.9%
    Hamilton City 1.9%
    Nelson City 1.2%

    Like

  397. soundhill,

    Mercola says homeopathy is effective and gives many “explanations” and “reasons” how homeopathy “works”. He also sells homeopathic preparations.

    Do you approve of Mercola telling these lies and selling products that have not been shown to have any effect?

    Like

  398. soundhill,

    Mercola says homeopathy is effective and gives many “explanations” and “reasons” how homeopathy “works”. He also sells homeopathic preparations.

    Do you approve of Mercola telling these lies and selling products that have not been shown to have any effect?

    What are your opinions of his lies and fraud?

    Like

  399. Stuartg I do not see the word “homeopathic” in Mercola’s online shop.

    Like

  400. Stuartg: “What are your opinions of his lies and fraud?”

    I think homeopathy requires a trained diagnoser.

    Note in the perimenopausal depression test “IHT” “Individualised Homepathic Treatment” was used.

    It would not be a matter of buying a treatment off the shelf without training.

    Imagine trying to prove if penicillin works in a test where it be given to people with a rash. It takes a proper diagnoser to decide if it be appropriate for that type of rash. Without the diagnosis it might work for a small proportion of rashes.

    Testing whether homeopapthy works be then like testing whether conventional medicine works.

    In the case of homeopathy the homeopath is trying to stimulate the body to heal itself.

    In conventional medicine the body has to heal itself but without the part of neutralising the toxin or infection. With homeopathy the body be stimulated to purify as one part of healing.

    Note conventional medicine sometimes takes note of bodily hormonal cycles when prescribing how to adminsiter medication. Or it might say “take before eating,” or “don’t take with …” or “wait a few weeks.”

    When vetting homeopathy trials make sure all the principles are known.

    A recent Reith Lecturer related how his son was not doing well after birth. He had an oxygen concentration monitor on his thumb and the reading was not too bad. Now tell me the next bit.

    Like

  401. soundhill,

    So, what is your personal opinion of Mercola’s lies and fraud?

    Like

  402. “A recent Reith Lecturer related how his son was not doing well after birth. He had an oxygen concentration monitor on his thumb and the reading was not too bad. Now tell me the next bit.”

    I think the lecture was 2014.

    A doctor who knew more transferred the monitor on to the other hand, which showed a very low level. Prostaglandin E1 was adminstered to reopen the before-birth blood channel in the heart till an operation could be performed.

    And I suggest that homeopathic doctors learn to be aware to differences that may be missed in the training of other doctors. As said on the Mercola vet video I linked, there are different types of colds needing different remedies, for example.

    What the webpages you quoted about Mercola say are not accurate. In my opinion they are part of a big propaganda like the fossil fuel companies have admitted to doing about global warming. The propaganda is repeated so much that confusion is bred and people believe wrong stuff.

    Mercola is involved with the Vitamin D Council. Just now I am trying to find about how total UVB dose varies across NZ. Because Hamilton is further north than Christchurch, even though it may get similar hours of sunlight it will get more UVB annual dose so the vitamin D status of the Hamilton people is likely to be better. I hypothesise the effect of fluoridation on increased eye trouble is reduced by better vitamin D status. Or better iodine status which Otago people can have. Also the Waikato River is quite good for iodine. It is lowered in water treatment but I suspect untreated river water to be used for farm irrigation.

    Mercola educates people to get their nutrients and lifestyles in balance. People are grateful and support his shop instead of using the supermarkets. Supermarkets follow him. Now they have got to selling krill oil which offers omega3 fatty acids without putting the same stress on the ocean food chain that fin-fish omega 3 puts.

    Like

  403. soundhill,

    Mercola has been found making illegal claims:
    http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2005/mercola.shtml
    http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2006/mercola2.shtml
    http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2011/mercola.shtml

    In two hundred years, no-one has managed to prove homeopathy effective in any condition at all. Mercola states it is effective, and even invents pseudoscientific explanations of how homeopathy works. He lies to his “patients” in order to sell his snake oil and secure profits for himself.

    It’s evident that you idolise this snake oil salesman. Nothing from the real world is allowed to tarnish the gilded pedestal upon which your conspiracist fantasies has placed him in the forefront of your religious beliefs.

    You’ve certainly negated any claims to having a sceptical viewpoint.

    Like

  404. Stuartg that 2005 coconut oil complaint by FDA was preceded by this research on its properties in diet:

    “Conclusion:
    The results demonstrated the potential beneficiary effect of virgin coconut oil in lowering lipid levels in serum and tissues
    and LDL oxidation by physiological oxidants. This property of VCO may be attributed to the biologically active polyphenol components
    present in the oil.

    2004 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. ”

    http://meltorganic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Beneficial-effects-of-virgin-coconut-oil-on-lipid-parameters-and-in-vitro-LDL-oxidation.pdf

    And this from a 2016 FASEB experimental biology meeting:

    http://www.fasebj.org/content/30/1_Supplement/904.19.short

    “These data suggest that much smaller amounts of CO than previously reported can significantly raise HDL without adversely impacting LDL or total cholesterol; however, more research is needed to confirm these secondary findings.”

    2 grams daily of coconut oil was helping.

    FDA should state which point of all those they are troubled about.

    Like

  405. Stuartg, where have the FDA censured Mercola for promoting homeopathy?

    Like

  406. Where is thermography up to?
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27721713

    ————–Mammography Thermography
    sensitivity——– 80.5% 81.6%
    specificity——– 73.3% 57.8%
    positive prediction 84.5% 78.9%
    negative prediction 66.0% 61.9%
    accuracy——— 76.9% 69.7%

    So thermography was a bit less good but seemingly a good option for women who care about breast pain, damage and spreading of cancer through mammography or where no xray machine is available.

    And note that trial was only done on patients who were already being referred for biopsy.

    The thermographic camera referred to in the FDA warning to Mercola has a sensitivity of 0.1 degrees Celsius if it has not changed (Meditherm Med2000).

    I presume Omranipour et al have used something similar.

    Like

  407. soundhill,

    OK, so you’ve accepted the FDA has censured Mercola. Congratulations! A glimpse of the real world finally bypassing the filters of your conspiracy-based fantasy world.

    From your reference: “CONCLUSION:
    Our study confirms that, at the present time, thermography cannot substitute for mammography for the early diagnosis of breast cancer.”

    This is the evidence you have to support Mercola? A study that shows thermography is still ineffective five years later? I consider it good support for the FDA’s approach.

    Like

  408. soundhill,

    I have to admit, though, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27721713 is a good citation. It just doesn’t say what you fantasise it says.

    Like

  409. “CONCLUSION:
    Our study confirms that, at the present time, thermography cannot substitute for mammography for the early diagnosis of breast cancer.”

    Diagnosis meaning to figure out whether the lumps are cancer.

    It is not far behind mammography, overall for “diagnosis.” But in sensitivity of detection it is 1% better. Therefore I believe it to be a better screening tool than mammography, and can be followed by mammography for a little better diagnosis before biopsy.

    Remember mammography actually causes a few percent extra cancers. It also discourages women by its painful compression of the breast, a pain which can last. Can it damage the tendons of some breasts so they droop afterwards?

    If cancer be present it be better not to damage blood vessels in the breast and cause it to spread via the blood stream. (Watch out for new cancers along the paths of the needle biopsy needles, too.)

    Like

  410. soundhill,

    You repeated Mercola’s waffle about thermography versus mammography as a screening test for early detection of breast cancer. “The Newest Safe Cancer Screening Tool” as he called it. Early detection – as in before a lump can be felt.

    Your citation studied women who had already been referred for biopsy – ie already had a lump. This is not thermography being used as a screening tool; it’s about aiding diagnosis in someone who already has a clinical abnormality – and the authors say that it’s still not as good as mammography!

    “I believe it to be a better screening tool than mammography.” You’ve cited no evidence about thermography as a screening tool to demonstrate your belief is anything but fantasy.

    “Remember mammography actually causes a few percent extra cancers”. Exactly how many percent? Citation required. Is this fantasy again?

    “Can it damage the tendons of some breasts?” What tendons? Citation required. Your lack of knowledge of anatomy reveals itself. Again. Tendon: a flexible but inelastic cord of strong fibrous collagen tissue attaching a muscle to a bone. Show us where muscles or bones are found in breasts!

    “Watch out for new cancers along the paths of the needle biopsy needles” What cancers? Citation required. But in order to help others who live in the real world instead of a world of fantasy, it’s a very low risk and so far has been below the threshold of detection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3473763/

    Like

  411. Stuartg: “Tendon: a flexible but inelastic cord of strong fibrous collagen tissue attaching a muscle to a bone. Show us where muscles or bones are found in breasts!”

    Thanks for the correction, it is ligaments of course. The Cooper’s ligaments can suffer permanent damage through excessive stretching.

    “I am 53 and have had a lot of mammograms over the years. I went to a different lab about 4 years ago and the technician hurt me very badly. I went back the next year but asked for a new tech. She hurt me as well.
    It doesn’t hurt to lift anything or move my arms but I cant lie on my stomach without having pillows under my sides and head to keep the pressure off.
    I went back to the original lab and it was much better. Unfortunately the damage was done and I have to live with the constant pain in my left breast ”

    And a lot more.

    http://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/excessive-breast-pain-after-mammogram?page=16

    Like

  412. I wrote: “Remember mammography actually causes a few percent extra cancers”.
    Stuartg wrote: “Exactly how many percent? Citation required. Is this fantasy again?”

    You haven’t read or have forgotten what I linked on Sep 29 on the “democracy” thread.
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480754

    “Two modeling studies provided estimates of radiation exposure, breast cancer incidence, and death (91, 92) (Appendix Table 4). […]that the number of deaths due to radiation-induced cancer ranged from […] to 11 per 100 000 in those aged 40 to 59 years screened annually”

    Like

  413. Stuartg: “Your citation studied women who had already been referred for biopsy – ie already had a lump. This is not thermography being used as a screening tool; it’s about aiding diagnosis in someone who already has a clinical abnormality – and the authors say that it’s still not as good as mammography!”

    The sensitivity of the mammogram to see the possible cancer was 1% less than the thermography.

    I doubt Mercola has said anywhere that you shouldn’t have a followup mammogram if your thermogram sees something.

    But I doubt if much would be lost by going straight to ultrasound/biopsy. Why think it to be safe to squash a breast with a lump?

    You have provided a ref about needle-biopsy path cancer. Though it wasn’t sure it still said vacuum technique may be safer. So why risk bruising a breast with a lump?

    Like

  414. Stuartg: “You repeated Mercola’s waffle about thermography versus mammography as a screening test for early detection of breast cancer. “The Newest Safe Cancer Screening Tool” as he called it. Early detection – as in before a lump can be felt.”

    Mammography according to the table I posted is sensitive to about 80% of possible cancers (breast -lump.)

    A rogue cell divides into two and then they divide and an exponential growth happens. The exponential curve starts with a slow gradient which later rapidly rises. The thermograph is said to note the increase in blood supply to the area before the lump is visible to mammography.

    Like

  415. soundhill,

    Changing the goal posts? You were talking about thermography as a screening test, not a diagnostic investigation. “I believe it to be a better screening tool than mammography”. So where is your evidence? Other than the illegal claims of Mercola? Citations about diagnostic investigations provide no evidence about screening tests.

    “Remember mammography actually causes a few percent extra cancers”. Exactly how many percent? Citation required. You haven’t provided any citations.

    “Can it damage the tendons of some breasts?” What tendons? Citation required. You haven’t provided any citations.

    “Watch out for new cancers along the paths of the needle biopsy needles” What cancers? Citation required. You haven’t provided any citations.

    Even though asked, you haven’t provided evidence. By declining to supply evidence, you give the distinct impression that you don’t have any.

    Another question: “The thermograph is said to note the increase in blood supply to the area before the lump is visible to mammography”. …said to… How about providing some evidence rather than hearsay? Remember, your previous citation covered investigation of clinical disease and had nothing to do with screening. Mammography is documented to pick up 2mm cancers at screening – where is your comparable evidence for thermography?

    Thermography has not been shown to be effective as a screening tool. You claim otherwise. It’s up to you to provide evidence that supports your fantasy.

    Like

  416. Stuartg: “Can it damage the tendons of some breasts?” What tendons? Citation required. You haven’t provided any citations.”

    I suppose I might try to get some figures from Accident Compensation. In whose medical interest would it be to publish a study? Would any study get past the publication barrier?

    Another quote from Steady Health:

    “My doctor didn’t really want to hear what happened to me, either. I really just went to her to find out the full extent of my injuries, and in order to explain why I was asking, I thought I had to explain what happened. Perhaps, she was worried that I would get her involved in a complaint process. Or perhaps, she just didn’t want to hear bad news? Anyhow, she did try to remain professional. She diagnosed me with chest trauma, but I feel like she was emotionally distracted and did not give me a thorough diagnosis. I could tell in her eyes that she didn’t even believe herself when she told me nothing was torn (I’m pretty sure at least the Cooper’s ligaments are, if not some chest muscles) and everything will return to 100%”

    Like

  417. So, soundhill, you aren’t able to provide any citations to back your claims.

    Perhaps because you turn a blind eye to intrusions from the real world, such as the scientific method and actual proof, so that your conspiracy-based fantasy world isn’t disturbed?

    Like

  418. Stuartg I am waiting for this.
    Evolution of Imaging in Breast Cancer.
    Authors:
    GARCIA, EVELYN M.1 emgarcia@carilionclinic.org
    CROWLEY, JAMES1
    HAGAN, CATHERINE1
    ATKINSON, LISA L.1
    Source:
    Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology. Jun2016, Vol. 59 Issue 2, p322-335. 14p.

    But it may already be outdated in some respects.

    From your earlier reference:
    FDA: “The Meditherm Med2000 Telethermographic camera is not intended to be used as a stand-alone device to diagnose or screen any disease or condition.”

    They haven’t updated that since their 2015 thermography breast file only repeats 2011 data. But this says RDA says it may be used for RSD.
    http://www.med-hot.com/fda_requirements.php

    If you think you are promoting something better why not DBT?

    Like

  419. soundhill,

    I’m asking you to provide evidence to support your fantasy: “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    Current scientific evidence shows that thermography is useless in screening for breast cancer.

    All you have to do is produce the evidence to show that thousands researching the subject around the world are wrong…

    Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

    As an aside, could you please explain how you fantasise that thermography in reflex sympathetic dystrophy type I, a disorder that usually occurs in forearms and lower legs after trauma, could possibly relate to screening for breast cancer? Other than being the ONLY diagnosis that the FDA considers that thermography is applicable for? (Reference: your own citation – another case of impressing the naive with (inappropriate) citations).

    Like

  420. soundhill,

    As for DBT, why are you asking about dialectical behavior therapy (DBT)?

    Have you been referred for some?

    Like

  421. soundhill,

    If you can’t provide evidential citations to support your claims, we have to conclude they are merely your fantasies.

    Like

  422. Stuartg: “As for DBT, why are you asking about dialectical behavior therapy (DBT)?

    Have you been referred for some?”

    When you can’t think of an answer attack the questioner?

    Stuartg is pretending he has not heard of Digital Breast Tomography.
    Maybe there will be some cost to medical practices. But it can reduce unnecessary biopsies. Whoops what does that do to the budget?

    Like

  423. Stuartg, when medical protocols are updated it will be hard for practices which depended on them.

    In the veterinary field vaccinations used to be annual:
    ” after years of objective consideration, the American Association of Feline Practitioners established such 3-year core vaccination guidelines for cats in 2000 (updated in 2006), and the American Animal Hospital Association did so for dogs in 2003 (updated in 2011).

    This has challenged and changed the veterinary profession.”
    http://www.totalbondvets.com/about-us/position-statements/
    The vaccination was a time to go to the vet. You can still go and pay and get a check up. The old mammography/biopsy will have to adapt teh way so many people have to with changes in technology. The “talkies” meant a lot of musicians were made redundant from silent movie theatres. Maybe you worry but it has to happen.

    And it won’t be thermography is useless and DBT is the only thing. You will find more doctors buying thermographs and interpretation programming. It will be a combination. If your family has a breast cancer history why not get a thermogram every 6 weeks in addition to DBT? Some people go for prophylactic mastectomy. Which is more over the top?

    Like

  424. soundhill,

    Actually, contrary to your expectations, I’ve never heard of “digital breast tomography”. It’s not surprising, since neither has Dr Google. Or Mercola.

    I suspect that your consultation with Dr Google has resulted in you misreading the term tomosynthesis. (I checked it wasn’t a spellchecker making the mistake). Derived from standard mammograms, tomosynthesis has been approved by the FDA, but is not standard of care. There’s no tomography involved in it, which is why it’s called tomosynthesis.
    http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/testing/types/dig_tomosynth

    I am not an expert in breast care. I freely admit the limitations of my knowledge. I have no need to know about tomosynthesis, so I didn’t know about it. If I need to step outside of my areas of knowledge, I follow the guidelines of the experts, in other words follow the standard of care.

    This is in stark contrast to yourself. You consider that, after a few minutes on Dr Google or Mercola’s site, you are now the world expert on breast cancer, thermography, mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (although you can’t read then spell the latter). It’s an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. What a pity it’s all fantasy.

    In spite of your fantasies about your expertise, you still haven’t produced any real world evidence to support your statement: “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    (Interesting citation, though. Advertising a veterinary practice. Not a thing in it about breast care or mammography. I see you’re still trying to impress the naive with citations)

    Like

  425. soundhill,

    I see you don’t approve of protocols. Why not?

    Examples of protocols:
    Preflight checklist
    TCP/IP
    Warrant of Fitness
    Traffic lights/roundabouts
    ASCII
    Which side of the road you drive on
    How to take a mammogram (or even a thermogram!)
    Sterile procedure in operating theatres

    So, which of the above would you dispense with?

    We each follow protocols many times each day.

    And why would we find it difficult to adapt to changing protocols? As an example of changing protocol, the entire country did so easily when the road code rules for turns were recently changed.

    Like

  426. Stuartg: “And why would we find it difficult to adapt to changing protocols? As an example of changing protocol, the entire country did so easily when the road code rules for turns were recently changed”

    That wasn’t costly for most of them.

    I brought up the animal vaccination example as there has been resistance to that. It was a big earner for vets. There was resistance to formation of the new protocol then resistance to adopting it.

    Here is more user discussion about the doctors, some increasing titer charges when people want to check if their pet still has resistance rather than vaccination I think:
    http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2015/08/01/pet-immunization.aspx

    Sorry mixing tomography with tomosynthesis which uses less radiation but can’t go so deep in here where it is talked about for chests

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3487077/

    If you think it be easy to adapt then for how long will radiology clinics still use the old technology which produces too many biopsies?

    Like

  427. soundhill,

    So, still no citations posted to support your fantasies…

    Like

  428. soundhill,

    Impressing the naive with citations again?

    Chest digital tomosynthesis to detect artificial pulmonary nodules has absolutely nothing to do with breast tomosynthesis, screening mammography, breast thermography or even breast cancer.

    Your randomised foraging on Dr Google and Mercola is diverting even further from your fantasy: “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    Like

  429. Stuartg WROTE: “Chest digital tomosynthesis to detect artificial pulmonary nodules has absolutely nothing to do with breast tomosynthesis, screening mammography, breast thermography or even breast cancer.”

    Wiki: “Tomosynthesis, also digital tomosynthesis, is a method for performing high-resolution limited-angle tomography at radiographic dose levels. It has been studied for a variety of clinical applications, including vascular imaging, dental imaging, orthopedic imaging, mammographic imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, and chest imaging.[1]”

    So it be a sort of CAT scan.

    Wiki: “A CT [sometimes CAT] scan makes use of computer-processed combinations of many X-ray images taken from different angles to produce cross-sectional (tomographic) images (virtual “slices”) of specific areas of a scanned object, allowing the user to see inside the object without cutting.?

    Stuartg you were making a big thing about the difference. Then you criticise my explanation of the connection but differences as irrelevant. How about being constructive? I think you are only trying to obfuscate.

    In a CAT scan synthesis of a 3D image (many 2D slices) inside a body or organ is synthesised from many x-ray beams through that organ.

    Tomosynthesis is doing a similar thing, though with lower dose of radiation and some restriction.

    Like

  430. Stuartg, from your FDA thermography complaint to Mercola:
    quoting Mercola: “Yes, it’s true. Thermograms provide you with early diagnosis and treatment assistance in such problems as cancer, inflammatory processes, neurological and vascular dysfunction, and musculoskeletal injury.”

    FDA: “Not only do the statements made on your website and the content of the video that appears on your site, as well as other sites that you endorse, state or imply that the Meditherm Med2000 Telethermographic camera can be used alone to diagnose or screen for various diseases or conditions associated with the breast, they also represent that the sensitivity of the Meditherm Med2000 Telethermographic camera is greater than that of machines used in mammography.”

    Stuartg a lot of times I have questioned you about something you said implying something else and you disagree, it has to be excatly what is said, you say.

    FDA say that what Mercola says *implies” the thermograph can be used alone. Noting what he actually said I do not think you would let me get away with that implication. He even uses the expression “early diagnosis and treatment ASSISTANCE.” When something is assisting it is not being used by itself.

    Mercola’s misfortune is that by being ahead of the times, in offering assistance, he is worrying trad practices who want to continue ruling on their own.
    The maths is moving along:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4977307/
    ” This preliminary study does suggest that combining sparse and sometimes painful and quite uncomfortable mammography examinations with more frequent inexpensive, quick and painless IR thermography examinations could become an efficient routine breast cancer screening method to identify, as early as possible, women with high risk of breast cancer.”

    This is a study of women with cancer, but they have a non-cancerous breast so half the study is about the picture they have.

    And note it is not about the old human visual interpretation of the mammogram. If you are trying to promote that old method as the gold standard then you are to be faulted.

    Thermography not working for some deep tumours like 6 to 12 cm.

    “Note that for the subset of (5) patients, including patients 3 (Figure S9), 7 (Figure ​(Figure5),5), and 30 (Figure S10), who were shown to have also a lot of “risky” H = 0.5 squares on their contralateral unaffected breast mammograms, they also have a lot of risky monofractal squares on the thermograms of their two breasts which might be an additional sign of the possible extension of cancer to their second breast. Among the patients with few “risky” monofractal squares (≲ 10%) on their IR thermograms of their cancerous breast, 4 correspond to rather deep tumors, namely patients 12 (size 1.8 cm, depth 12 cm), 16 (3.4 cm, 7 cm), 18 (3.49 cm, 6 cm) (Figure ​(Figure7)7) and 28 (3.49 cm, 8 cm). For these 4 patients the percentage of “risky” H = 0.5 squares on their corresponding cancerous breast mammograms is significantly high (≳ 10%), meaning that, although imperceptible in temperature dynamics at the skin surface, the change in the microenvironment of these deep tumors turns out to be detectable with X-ray mammography.”

    So as Mercola was claiming thermography is assistive. I believe that to exclude its assistance to be criminal.

    You don’t understand and you say: ” Derived from standard mammograms, tomosynthesis has been approved by the FDA,”
    Wrong. The standard mammogram only takes two views as your ref said. Tomosynthesis and CAT scans synthesise from more.
    Wiki:
    “Digital tomosynthesis combines digital image capture and processing with simple tube/detector motion as used in conventional computed tomography (CT). However, though there are some similarities to CT, it is a separate technique. In CT, the source/detector makes at least a complete 180-degree rotation about the subject obtaining a complete set of data from which images may be reconstructed. Digital tomosynthesis, on the other hand, only uses a limited rotation angle (e.g., 15-60 degrees) with a lower number of discrete exposures (e.g., 7-51) than CT. This incomplete set of projections is digitally processed to yield images similar to conventional tomography with a limited depth of field. Because the image processing is digital, a series of slices at different depths and with different thicknesses can be reconstructed from the same acquisition. However, since fewer projections are needed than CT to perform the reconstruction, radiation exposure and cost are both reduced.”

    Like

  431. soundhill,

    Other than suggesting that you learn about radiology, and saying that tomography was in use by radiologists for decades before digital computers began to be used in the field, I’m not going to even start on how many misapprehensions about radiology you have just demonstrated. Dr Google assumes that a person has some basic knowledge about a subject, but when they don’t have that basic knowledge, the Dunning-Kruger effect shines out.

    Perhaps you could stop your diversionary tactics and answer the question I have asked of you several times?

    soundhill: “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    Beliefs without evidence are fantasy. What evidence do you have to contradict the scientific consensus and support your belief?

    Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.” – Isaac Asimov.

    What makes you, soundhill, believe in something? To others, it appears that you believe in anything that Mercola has even hinted approval of, because of your (demonstrably inaccurate) belief in his infallibility.

    Like

  432. soundhill,

    More impressing the naive with citations? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…/PMC4977307/ is about women who already have breast cancer, not about screening.

    It’s full of speculation. “suggest”, “may”, “could become”, etc are hardly suggestive that the authors have proven your belief about thermography.

    Remember: “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    Evidence is needed, not speculation about future research.

    Like

  433. Stuartg: “https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…/PMC4977307/ is about women who already have breast cancer, not about screening.”

    Breast cancer screening is about finding cancers in breasts. Cancer is normally found in one breast. The other still needs screening.

    Computed interpretation of thermographs or tomosynthsesised xray images based on fractal mathematics can point to underlying trouble in the other breast, I thought I read in the paper.

    (tomos – Greek for section; synthesis – putting them together)

    But thermography cannot look so deep in as sectioning xrays. However it is still a useful tool since it may be used more frequently than xrays and cancer can grow a lot in a year.

    Thermography is a better screening tool than xrays alone. It may be done every month safely without extra radiation dose.

    Like

  434. “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    I didn’t know about fractal analysis of section synthesised images when I wrote that.

    The old mammography misses a lot of tumours. What is missed can grow a lot in a year.

    Mathematically analysed thermograms can show changing patterns of blood circulation associated with cancers. As one would suspect they have to be close enough to the surface of the breast. 6, 8 or 12 cm was too deep as in my ref.

    I am waiting for a review of current screening. I hope it actuarlially compares monthly thermograms with annual xrays. alone and in combination.

    If thinking about thermograms or xrays alone does the greater frequency of the thermogram make up for what is missed by the old mammogram?

    Like

  435. But as Mercola says it be better to work with healthy living rather than concentrate on cancer detection.

    Mercola can be wrong and he does not stop people saying that on his discussion board.

    For example here is what stoneharbor said on Mercola’s board on 30 Jun 2008:
    “Regarding the form of vitamin K2 that is present in most cheeses, MK4 – Dr. Mercola states that another form, MK7, stays “biologically active” longer in the human body, and therefore is preferred. This claim is based on measurement of the vitamin in the blood. MK7 shows much longer in the blood serum than MK4. We should remember that often things stay circulating in the blood if there is no use for them in our bodies! It happens that MK4 is the form that vitamin K2 is stored in. So our bodies can immediately store away any MK4 from cheese we eat and use it later. It is still “biologically active”, but is not measureable in the blood.”

    If we take vitamin D (in USA it is added to milk) then we need vitamin K2 to make sure the vitamin D deposits calcium in the correct places not our arteries. Vitamin D promotes cell-differentiation and differentiated cells don’t proliferate.

    People living in lower latitudes and getting more sunlight get less prostate and breast cancer. (Though Mercola was prevented from such marketing of UVB sunbeds.)

    Here is something I wrote on google groups in 1998:
    : : I don’t think that the NZ publication ‘Cancer Registrations’ any
    longer
    : : gives figures to show how cancer varies in relation to district.
    : :
    : : I have added the figures for 1980 – 1984 for prostate cancer
    : : registrations per 100,000
    :
    : City Auckland Hamilton Palm. Nth. Wellington Christchurch Dunedin
    : Latitude 37 38 40 41 44 46
    :

    : Cases 98 92 94 100 137 128

    : Sorry I forgot to divide the figures by 5 after adding the five
    years.

    : Those would be registrations, not deaths. Here are the corresponding
    : female breast figures:

    : 192 170 168 185 191 239

    Like

  436. soundhill,

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    So, still no evidence for your fantasies. Just diversions to try to conceal that they have no basis in reality.

    “If thinking about thermograms or xrays alone does the greater frequency of the thermogram make up for what is missed by the old mammogram?”

    No. Increasing the frequency of ineffective breast screening with thermography does not improve its failure rate. It just fails more frequently. You would know this if you had paid attention to reality and not immersed yourself in fantasy beliefs.

    If you can’t produce evidence to support your beliefs, why are you persisting with commenting about your fantasy world? Just curious.

    Like

  437. Stuartg: “No. Increasing the frequency of ineffective breast screening with thermography does not improve its failure rate. It just fails more frequently.”

    Isn’t it like fishing and one moon they all escape through your net but by the next moon they have grown a bit and get caught?

    I referred recently that the sensitivity of thermography is greater than that of mammography by a percent.

    You say mammography “can” detect down to 2mm. But if it only gets 80% I bet a lot of 2mm ones won’t be seen.

    They will grow and show next mammogram perhaps, a year later or two.

    Here are some women talking about how fast their cancers grew.

    https://community.breastcancer.org/forum/96/topics/748324

    A cancer can grow quite big in a year. Thermography may pick it up before a year is up, which could be useful for fast growing cancers- the more aggressive sort.

    But it is also important to ensure that the best analysis software is being used an addition to visual checking, for either procedure.

    Like

  438. This study looking especially at “denser” breasts gives an indication of cancer size at first detection and also the prevalence of “interval cancer” which presents in between screenings.
    http://msc.sagepub.com/content/16/3/140.full

    Like

  439. soundhill,

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    But, even though you waffle on about all sorts of other things, you just aren’t able to produce any evidence to support that fantasy of yours. That’s because the evidence shows the opposite to your fantasy.

    “I referred recently that the sensitivity of thermography is greater than that of mammography by a percent.” – and I commented that that citation was about already known breast disease and had absolutely nothing to do with thermography as a screening tool. Read back if your fantasy world has forgotten the reality. That citation was merely impressing the naive with (irrelevant) citations.

    Your last two citations are also about impressing the naive with (irrelevant) citations. Neither had relevance to thermography or screening; one wasn’t even a scientific paper but was a patient commenting on a discussion forum!

    You are entitled to your fantasies, as is everyone, but you need to recognise them for what they are.

    Like

  440. soundhill,

    “Isn’t it like fishing and one moon they all escape through your net but by the next moon they have grown a bit and get caught?”

    No. It’s like thermography not being as effective a tool for breast cancer screening as mammography, no matter how many times it’s done.

    (Just out of curiosity, have you considered that increasing frequency of screening increases the number of false positives? And that will increase the morbidity and mortality attributed to unnecessary investigations? – don’t bother to answer, we know that in your fantasy world it is impossible for thermography to generate false positives and false negatives and that any morbidity and mortality statistics will be attributed solely to mammography.)

    Like

  441. Stuartg: “we know that in your fantasy world it is impossible for thermography to generate false positives and false negatives and that any morbidity and mortality statistics will be attributed solely to mammography.”

    You are looking silly because you are not reading my stuff. Or you may be again trying to create a perception about what I said.

    Or maybe you just did not understand.

    In addition thermography can be a substitute for detecting interval cancer between mammograms. If it be suspected another mammogram can be done if wished since mammograms according to the study I cited were a bit better at not giving false positives and negatives. And DBT is even better, but still adds ionising radiation that thermography doesn’t.

    Like

  442. Stuartg: “Your last two citations are also about impressing the naive with (irrelevant) citations. Neither had relevance to thermography or screening; one wasn’t even a scientific paper but was a patient commenting on a discussion forum!”

    Not everything can get through publication bias in “scientific” journals. Those many patients on the forum added important things to consider.

    The large amount of interval cancer appearing between mammogram screenings is a big indictment on mammography. You read about it in the patient statements and also saw it in the chart in the Melbourne paper.

    Like

  443. And still attempting to divert away from not having evidence to support fantasies…

    soundhill, you are not able to produce evidence to support your fantasies. Now you expect us to be able to follow your flight of ideas that flit hither and thither, minimally connected to your original fancy and speculative invention, when you haven’t even bothered to tell us how your imagination connects your guesswork to these subsequent ideas.

    We’re reading your stuff – we just have no idea how you think it is evidence that thermography is effective.

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.” (citation still required)

    Like

  444. Stuartg did you receive my yesterday’s 9:20am post when I wrote: “I didn’t know about fractal analysis of section synthesised images when I wrote that.”

    I think, since it is more sensitive than ordinary mammography, that it be better to use as the first screening pass, obviously followed up by some sort of mammography to eliminate some of the false positives. This is especially for women with dense breasts, which must now be notified I think.

    I think you be irresponsible to want mammography alone to be used.

    Like

  445. from the Garcia study I have now received:
    “In 1965, of 1512 patients referred to
    MDAnderson Hospital for breast evaluation,
    mammography and thermography
    were both performed on 100.6 Analysis
    of the data from these patients demonstrated
    the limitations of both mammography
    and thermography. Although
    thermographyhadnofalse-negativestudies,
    it had multiple false positives. Mammography
    alone yielded sensitivity of
    87% and specificity of 88% in biopsyproven
    cases of breast cancer. When the
    mammography and thermography resultswere
    combined, sensitivity improved
    to95%at the costofdecreased specificity,
    81%.”

    Stuartg you are worried about specificity. What do you think of the trade off in 1965? Do you think it would have been better to waste the extra 8% detection rate and tisk those women?

    Like

  446. soundhill,

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    That’s your belief/fantasy. Not mine. Just because Mercola says so doesn’t mean it’s true. After all, he doesn’t give any evidence either.

    I’m reading your blather, but I’ve got no idea how you are fantasising that this is evidence that thermography is a better screening tool for breast cancer than mammography.

    So, still (citation required).

    “I think you be irresponsible to want mammography alone to be used (for screening)” – I suggest that you look up what a screening test actually is. All screening tests are used in isolation. By definition. Worldwide. Further investigations only happen if a screening test is positive.

    The exception appears to be your fantasy world, where you seem to believe that further investigations are required when a screening test returns negative.

    I further suggest that you learn the distinction between when a test is being used for screening as opposed to being used for investigation. Your belief is about screening, but you continue to talk about and cite evidence about investigation as though the two were the same. They aren’t. Learn the difference. Still, you’re giving another good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Like

  447. soundhill,

    “Stuartg you are worried about specificity.”

    Now, where did I say that? You’re projecting your fantasy world onto other people. Again.

    Like

  448. “Specificty” = the likelihood of the test being normal when cancer is absent.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK65906/

    And Stuartg wrote: in reply to my comment: “Stuartg you are worried about specificity.”:
    “Now, where did I say that?”

    Stuartg had written: “don’t bother to answer, we know that in your fantasy world it is impossible for thermography to generate false positives and false negatives.”

    And Stuartg wrote: “Your belief is about screening, but you continue to talk about and cite evidence about investigation as though the two were the same.”

    I think you are confusing screening with the piece of equipment used.

    If a clinical breast exam finds a lump then would you call the followup mammogam screening or investigation? I think a number of mammograms will follow breast self examination therefore in your language will be investigation, not screening.

    CBE and mammography can be used alone or in combination. The equipment for the first is hand an brain of the examiner. The second may be an xray machine and brain of the reader or software reader programmer.

    Just because of using teh increased technology of a reading program does that make it an investigation rather than screening?

    Then by using the increased technology of a thermograph does that make it an investigation rather than screening?

    A mammogram combined with a thermogram with good software like No Touch has high specificity.

    “In conclusion, the results of this study support th
    e use of DIB as an effective
    adjunctive test for breast cancer detection in wome
    n under 70 years of age. DIB
    appears to be particularly effective in women under
    50 years old where maximal
    sensitivity (78%) and specificity (75%) were observ
    ed. The combined sensitivity of
    NoTouch BreastScan and mammography in women under 5
    0 was encouraging at
    89%, suggesting a potential way forward for a dual
    imaging approach in this younger
    age group. ”
    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00599228/document

    Note it is not either mammography or thermography. No Touch thermography is different and better than Sentinel.

    Like

  449. Forgot to add that was a 2011 study.

    This will be last year: http://abraterm.com.br/revista/index.php/PAJTM/article/viewFile/18/pdf_13
    “This combination of technologies would have
    an enormous reduction on the expense on
    healthcare in the area of biopsy and unnecessary
    surgeries. Previous biases to this method with
    older technologies need to be abandoned and
    physicians should become more familiar with this
    non-destructive form of testing to better serve
    their patients.”

    Such biases as you are showing Stuartg.

    Also note: “Combining the use of modalities generates
    better outcome measurements. We have been
    working to incorporate sonography with
    thermography for screening.”

    Do you say it has to be called investigation if two modes are used for screening?

    Like

  450. soundhill,

    Diversions again?

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    You’ve completely failed to provide any evidence to support this fantasy of yours. None of your citations have anything to do with breast cancer screening using thermography. They are merely a good example of impressing the naive with irrelevant citations.

    Like

  451. soundhill,

    “If a clinical breast exam finds a lump then would you call the followup mammogam screening or investigation?”

    Actually, it’s you that should answer that question.

    Do YOU think that investigations following the discovery of a breast lump are screening to find a lump? Or investigation of a lump that’s already known about?

    Science and medicine are definite about what constitutes screening and what constitutes investigation. The Dunning-Kruger effect is what allows a person to confuse the two.

    Like

  452. Stuartg I think you are leading people astray with your old training, trying to simplify stuff down. Do you remember talking about Occam’s razor?

    I fear that your approach would wish to keep the before school heaing check for 4-year-olds as simply a few-frequency hearing test. You would have to call the tympanography that goes with it today as “investigation.” Thereby you would be missing some ear problems that are now being found with the two-part screen. Same with simple mammogram.

    Like

  453. soundhill,

    Leading people astray?

    Who’s the person that says “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.” and then can’t produce any evidence to support the fantasy?

    Why has that person that produced diversion after diversion in attempting to conceal their lack of evidence?

    Why can’t that person acknowledge that they haven’t known the difference between a screening test and an investigation until it was pointed out there was a difference?

    Why does that person keep trying to impress the naive with (inappropriate) citations?

    Perhaps it’s simply because they are unaware of their own incompetence? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367

    Like

  454. Stuartg: “Who’s the person that says “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.” and then can’t produce any evidence to support the fantasy?”

    I produced a number of studies showing that doctors using thermography, especially with good classification software, are doing better than those screeners only using mammography. And the mammographers do not start till the patient is 40 or 50 whereas thermography can start earler.

    Sorry for Stuartg’s patients that he want to classify proper screening as investigation therefore short change them.

    I apologise to his patients for him for his calling the request for better protection a diversion.

    I am sorry for Mercola for the label Stuartg puts on him but I believfe the light is gradually dawning about who the label really fits.

    Like

  455. soundhill,

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.” (citation needed)

    “I produced a number of studies showing that (investigators) using thermography (for investigation of pre-existing breast lumps) are doing (about the same as) those (investigators) only using mammography (for investigation of pre-existing breast lumps).” – FTFY

    What you haven’t done is to produce any evidence about thermography, or even mammography, when used as a screening tool for breast cancer. And since use as a screening tool is what your belief is about, that’s the evidence that people expect you to produce.

    All you’ve done is demonstrate that you do not know the difference between screening for a condition and investigation of a related condition.

    Like

  456. Stuartg to test the sensitivity of a detection tool it be necessary to have a study group. That will be a population with some breast cancer. If it be a population with found breast lumps already then the job of the blinded examiners is to determine which of the 50% of breasts are more likely to have those lumps as cancer.

    It has been done with Xray mammography on large populations which does not show much prolongation of life.

    The thermography tests are equal or better for sensitivity on the relatively small group they have been compared on at detecting cancers. But it needs to be done with thermography used in the interval between mammograms to see if that prolongs life. And also in the 30-40 year olds who lose more years of life but are not xray screened.

    But your approach is a big study has not been done so there is no proof so therefore no study should be done.

    Like

  457. soundhill,

    Nine days since you attempted to impress the naive by citing that paper concluding that thermography couldn’t be used instead of mammography in the investigation of pre-existing breast disease – when you argued that the authors meant something different to their writing and conclusions.

    Remember, you cited it to defend Mercola’s FDA censured support of thermography being used to screen for breast cancer even though the paper had nothing to do with screening for breast cancer.

    All you have to do is look back and read what you actually said to verify.

    Nine days later and you’ve still not produced any evidence about either thermography or mammography being used as a screening tool for breast cancer.

    Remember what you said:

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    It’s still up to you to cite any evidence showing that your belief is anything other than fantasy.

    Like

  458. Stuartg, http://www.aiimjournal.com/article/S0933-3657(15)00089-5/abstract
    “Our proposed hybrid cost-sensitive ensemble can facilitate a highly accurate early diagnostic of breast cancer based on thermogram features. It overcomes the difficulties posed by the imbalanced distribution of patients in the two analysed groups.”

    Like

  459. soundhill,

    There you go again. Citing diagnostic methods instead of screening tools. Impressing the naive with citations.

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    So where is your evidence about thermography and mammography when used as screening tools? Or do we accept your beliefs as fantasy?

    Like

  460. Stuartg you want screeing to be just determining a risk of cancer and then diagnosis determine if it be so? (Note I put a question mark there, I am not saying you said that.)
    I cited this recently regarding “No Touch” :
    http://abraterm.com.br/revista/index.php/PAJTM/article/viewFile/18/pdf_13
    “The use of the term “risk factor” in
    Thermology is invalid. The thermal patterns seen
    are not “risk factors”, but actually early signs of
    cancer due to inflammation, neoangiogenesis, or
    estrogen related activity. A mammogram detects
    tumors dense enough to be visualized on
    radiographs. Physiologically, before a dense mass
    appears, heat is generated in and around the cells
    where the cancer is developing, which is
    rendered on thermal images. A potential use for
    “risk factor” prediction may lie in the thermal
    identification of estrogen dominance.
    Using mammogram technology to initially
    screen for cancer rather than thermal imaging is
    like waiting for a tire to blow out instead of
    inspecting its’ treads. Thermography sees the
    metabolic indicators of cancer earlier, therefore
    being a great adjunct to anatomical screening.
    Risk factor assessment should be abolished.
    The use of thermal imaging for breast cancer
    screening should be utilized for initial analysis
    and establishing baselines for each patient.
    Changes in thermal activity must then be
    investigated and assigned appropriate clinical
    investigation including an ultrasound and
    diagnostic mammogram.”

    The word “adjunct” is changing meaning from a non-essential add on. In the new meaning it tries to be polite about the earlier technology, suggesting add on \to it, but is actually overtaking it/substituting for it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26663439

    Negative pressure wound therpay as “a great adjunct” in treating acne inversa.”

    Hopefully “No Touch” thermography will do better than mammography screening which is doing nothing, may even be increasing cancer:
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/hematologyoncology/breastcancer/52468

    Like

  461. I meant “doing very little against cancer mortality.”

    Like

  462. I must get into it more.

    This shows how to use free Gimp software to make fractals.

    Then I think it be possible to mathematically detect if an image be a fractal.

    Living organs have fractal form and a cancer disturbs that. So fractal analysis can see that happening.

    I think.

    Like

  463. soundhill,

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    Then why don’t you give us some evidence about thermography being used as a screening tool?

    1st ref: from a “journal” that has produced exactly 26 “papers” in 2 volumes, each of which is a barely disguised advert for thermography. Basically says you can use thermography for screening.

    2nd ref: about vacuum dressings in hidradenitis suppurativa. Not a thing about screening, breast cancer…

    3rd ref: mammography, yes. Screening, yes. Thermography – no.

    4th “ref”: how to use free software to do things I programmed 8 bit (Z80) computers to do nearly 40 years ago.

    You’re definitely trying to impress the naive with increasingly irrelevant citations.

    How about giving us one that is actually relevant to you beliefs?

    Like

  464. Stuartg: “2nd ref: about vacuum dressings in hidradenitis suppurativa. Not a thing about screening, breast cancer…”

    No but about the an example of the use of the term “adjunct.”

    Like

  465. Stuartg: “1st ref: from a “journal” that has produced exactly 26 “papers” in 2 volumes, each of which is a barely disguised advert for thermography. Basically says you can use thermography for screening.”

    It has already been cited in the Sao Paulo journal, “Einstein.”

    There is a big shadow hanging over thermography from the trial of the 1970s. Things have moved on since then.

    But journal attitudes can be very much about vested interests, and it may be hard to get a publisher. This reviews reviews:

    “Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author
    Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on
    Weight Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews” Mandrioli et al.
    Concludes
    “Our systematic review shows that financial conflicts of interest introduced a bias at all levels of the
    research and publication process (author financial ties, review sponsorship and journal funding),
    affecting the outcomes of reviews and possibly undermining the quality and transparency of public
    health evaluations that are reliant on these reviews. The bias introduced by financial interests could not
    be ascribed to the overall risk of bias of the reviews and was not prevented by the peer review process.”
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162198#sec044

    Like

  466. soundhill,

    “Adjunct”? You’re calling a post operative dressing an adjunct? When it’s been a routine part of the treatment since I was at medical school?

    In simple words, explain to us how a screening test has an adjunct. After all, if a screening test is negative nothing else is needed. If a screening test is positive, investigations are needed. What exactly is an adjunct to a screening test? The transport to get there?

    “Things have moved on since then”

    So give us the citations to show us how things have moved on…

    Don’t understand why you include that last reference, unless it’s to illustrate the conflicts of interest that Mercola has when he makes his recommendations/claims/advertisements on his web site.

    Must be trying to impress the naive with citations.

    Like

  467. Stuartg: “4th “ref”: how to use free software to do things I programmed 8 bit (Z80) computers to do nearly 40 years ago.”

    Did you make interesting fractals?

    Fractal analysis is also being used to improve mammography, and as I cited breast section synthesis radiography.

    You like talking about how things have developed over the years so you may imagine how mow it be possible for mathematical analysis to recognise fractals not just make them.

    I put in the program for people to play around and see the complexity which may appear, not as far as analysis which is however in papers I have cited

    It’s used for fingerprint recognition and ought to be in all mammogaphy, in addition to human visual recognition which however misses a lot.

    Like

  468. Styuartg: “Don’t understand why you include that last reference, unless it’s to illustrate the conflicts of interest that Mercola has when he makes his recommendations/claims/advertisements on his web site.”

    No it is about showing the peer review process is not excluding commercial Bias in scientific articles. I have a hunch you were hoping readers would not have understood. that.

    Like

  469. Stuartg: ““Adjunct”? You’re calling a post operative dressing an adjunct? When it’s been a routine part of the treatment since I was at medical school.”
    No, the article relates negative pressure wound therapy and calls it an adjunct to the normal dressing and cleaning. 10 years old. I suggest the article is pointing out that this “adjunct” as they call it is very beneficial and really could be thought of as essential for good healing.

    In the same way for the “adjunct” to “anatomical screening” of thermography.

    Like

  470. Stuartg: “3rd ref: mammography, yes. Screening, yes. Thermography – no”

    I leave a bit for people to think out.

    It said convetional mammography to be not much good if any at all. Therefore it would not be hard for thermography to beat it.

    Like

  471. I meant it said conventional mammography screening to be not much good at all in reducing breast cancer mortality.

    Furthermore
    “Disappointingly, while a 10-percentage point increase in screening was associated with about a 24% increase in breast-conserving surgical procedures (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.15-1.34), “there was no concomitant reduction in non-breast conserving surgical procedures including total an radical mastectomies,” researchers observed.”

    Like

  472. As Mercola says an idea with thermography be to change lifestyle if a spotty increase in breast circulation be seen.

    He gives many suggestions. One of his suggestions *could* be disagreed with for old women: A study found the estrogenic nature of soy to increase cancer growth around the menopause but resist it in old women, years later.

    Mercola may change his advice on unfermented soy for old women. Or he mightn’t.

    Like

  473. soundhill,

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    Waffling, diversion, waffling…

    But still unable to provide any evidence to support your belief/fantasy that thermography is a better screening tool for breast cancer than mammography.

    You are using speculation about possible uses for thermography, amongst other things, and imply your speculation is the frontier of medicine. It’s not. It’s an explorer looking at the far horizon and seeing a sea, unable to realise that it’s a mirage until they get closer.

    Unfortunately, if we follow that line of thinking, you’re an on-foot explorer who is ignoring the explorations, maps and satellite photos produced in recent decades, still fantasising that you are about to discover an unknown sea out there in the distance. Somehow, your blinkered vision is also managing to ignore the well established public transport that would take you in the correct direction.

    Like

  474. soundhill,

    “I meant it said conventional mammography screening to be not much good at all in reducing breast cancer mortality.”

    That’s a conclusion that can also be found in medical textbooks. It’s not even new. It’s still not evidence to support your statement:

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    Like

  475. soundhill,

    “Therefore it would not be hard for thermography to beat it.”

    Well, it hasn’t done so far according to the (lack of) evidence you’ve provided.

    Show us that your belief is something more than your fantasy backing up Mercola’s conflict of interest (you know which particular one, he’s been censured by the FDA for it, reference above).

    Like

  476. soundhill,

    I’m not getting into discussion about vacuum dressings other than to note that it’s not a new method of treatment, and that it is completely unrelated to screening tools for breast cancer.

    Like

  477. I wrote: “I meant it said conventional mammography screening to be not much good at all in reducing breast cancer mortality.”

    Stuartg wrote: “That’s a conclusion that can also be found in medical textbooks. It’s not even new.”

    Then why aren’t FDA sensing warnings to entities promoting mammography screening?

    Like

  478. FDA have warned Mercola for promoting thermography which FDA say is not effective in screening from breast cancer. But they allow mammography which also isn’t effective at preventing breast cancer mortality.

    And in the mean time thermography can detect cancer in dense breasts of younger women, which may not be palpated, especially if already multicentric.

    bib.irb.hr/datoteka/790671.elmar_2015_antonini.doc

    And you are getting on the bandwagon with FDA,

    Like

  479. soundhill,

    “Then why aren’t FDA sensing warnings to entities promoting mammography screening?”

    First, clarity in your writing would be a good thing. That sentence could be construed in several ways, depending upon which errors you committed in either your spelling or grammar.

    Second, I suggest that you find out what the purpose of the FDA actually is, rather than what you think it is. Then you would have your answer.

    Like

  480. soundhill,

    Your reference is about thermography used in 51 women who already had mastectomies scheduled because of known breast cancer.

    It has nothing to do with thermography as a screening tool. It makes no comparison with mammography. It merely discusses the possibility that thermography can aid in the differential diagnosis of already known breast cancer. That’s already known.

    You persist in confusing screening with diagnosis. They are not the same.

    This reference is the same as all your others in that it has absolutely nothing to do with thermography being used as a screening tool.

    Remember your statement: “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    You still haven’t produced any evidence in support of your statement. Without you providing evidence to support it, your statement remains evidence that you live in your own world of make-believe.

    Like

  481. soundhiil,

    I suggest that you re-read the letter sent to Mercola from the FDA. It tells how Mercola was illegally advertising and marketing a thermography camera, and the ways in which his activities were illegal. Rather than anybody “interpreting” the FDA’s intention for you, and possibly getting it wrong, you can read it for yourself

    http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2011/ucm250701.htm

    By the way, with respect to your earlier comment about the “FDA sensing warnings” (sic), try this reference and its hyperlinks. Again, no interpretation is needed, just read it for yourself (misspellings and all!).

    http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/

    Like

  482. Stuartg please show me where FDA agrees that mammography matches up to the claim of reducing mortality. They are supposed to check efficacy.

    Like

  483. soundhill,

    No-one is going to stop you searching and cherry picking for what you want to find. I don’t doubt that somewhere on the ‘net you will find something to support your fantasies (maybe Mercola?) http://www.fda.gov would be a better place to look for the reality, though.

    The FDA do check for efficacy. They just haven’t been informed that your fantasy world uses a different meaning of efficacy from the rest of the world.

    Meantime, whilst recognising your attempt at diversion, we’re still waiting for evidence to support your statement: “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    Since you haven’t found any evidence so far, here is a good page to start your search on the relative abilities of mammography and thermography when used as screening tools for breast cancer: http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm257499.htm

    Like

  484. FDA Mission part 2.
    “The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public
    health by helping to speed innovations that make
    medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more
    affordable; and helping the public get the accurate,
    science -based information they need to use medicines
    and foods, and to reduce tobacco use to improve health.”

    Medicines and foods? That gets them out of advancing screening innovations like thermography. It may be only about paying drug companies for trials.

    Stuartg your 2011 ref from FDA points out they do not have evidence of the effectiveness of screening thermography. On the other hand they do not claim they have evidence against its effectiveness. (But they do with the Canadian Breast Screening Study have evidence against effectiveness of mammography screening.)

    Thermography shows good results in small studies. It ought to have a place in the FDA program for speeding innovations.

    But the FDA wil also be very concerned with economic impact as with everything in this monetised day and age.

    “Worldwide Breast Cancer Screening Market was in double digit Billion US$ for 2013.” (renub)

    The brother organisation CDC is trying to stop its employee Dr Thompson testifying against it about destruction of vaccine-autism records.

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2016/cdc-director-blocks-testimony-by-cdc-whistleblower-in-vaccine-fraud-case/

    I know you will try to say that has nothing to do with thermography, but it does demonstrate drivers behind what gov supports.

    Like

  485. soundhill,

    Conspiracists galore! I thought that we’d done with that “CDC whistleblower” thing, especially after the “whistleblower” told the conspiracists they were wrong about what he said.

    Try:
    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccine-whistleblower-bj-hooker-and-william-thompson-try-to-talk-about-epidemiology/
    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccine-whistleblower-an-antivaccine-expose-full-of-sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing/
    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/review-of-vaccine-whistleblower-a-legal-perspective/
    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cdc-whistleblower-saga-updates-backlash-and-i-hope-a-wrap-up/
    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did-a-high-ranking-whistleblower-really-reveal-that-the-cdc-covered-up-proof-that-vaccines-cause-autism-in-african-american-boys/
    http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/cdc-whistleblower-zombie-anti-vaccine-trope-still-lives/
    http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/cdc-refuses-william-thompson-testify/
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/04/29/the-hilarity-continues-jake-crosby-echoes-brian-hookers-claims-that-the-man-has-gotten-to-the-cdc-whistleblower/
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/04/26/the-conspiracy-circle-is-complete-brian-hooker-claims-the-man-has-gotten-to-the-cdc-whistleblower/
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/27/ben-swanns-long-awaited-report-on-the-cdc-whistleblower-goes-over-like-a-lead-balloon-of-misinformation/
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/06/the-cdc-whistleblower-data-dump-redux-even-william-thompson-appears-not-to-believe-the-antivaccine-spin/

    Is that enough for now?

    “your 2011 ref from FDA points out they do not have evidence of the effectiveness of screening thermography.” Of course the FDA don’t have the evidence. Neither do you. “To acquire clearance to market a device using the 510(k) pathway, the submitter of the 510(k) must show that the medical device is “substantially equivalent” to a device that is already legally marketed for the same use.”
    http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194460.htm
    The manufacturer has to show that screening thermography is at least equivalent to mammography. So far they haven’t. That’s the reason why you can’t produce the evidence for your belief that thermogrophy is a better screening tool than mammography for breast cancer.

    “On the other hand they (the FDA) do not claim they have evidence against its effectiveness” Of course they don’t. That’s not what their job is. Try http://www.fda.gov to find out what the FDA actually does. And, just incidentally, maybe you’ll find out why FDA rulings don’t apply in NZ.

    Like

  486. Ken,
    Sorry, I posted substantially the same thing twice. Forgot about the number of references in the body. Please delete one of them.

    Like

  487. Stuartg, Thompson had kept copies of of the material on race and vaccine injury, believing it to be illegal to destroy them. Here see Posey speaking to the government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGRjn_gIJw0

    Like

  488. Stuartg it be very hard to get a full scale investigation of thermography efficacy for breast cancer screening.

    Though not efficacious somehow mammography was allowed to be tried on large populations.

    With the cameras and software of the 1970s apparently thermography was not very effricacious at breast cancer screening.

    A testing schedule now would involve a screening program strarting as soon as each technology is said to be safe and efficacioius. With thermography it is safe to start it earlier, and also it works better for the dense breasts of young women and so it would be started earlier. Women showing early changes in breast circulation patterns assessed by a program such as “No Touch” would be given lifestyle and nutritional advice.

    How many people do you think FDA would require in the test group? The more subjects the fewer years it would have to run before any difference in mortality would show.

    Like

  489. One of the new approaches in thermography:
    “The use of a cold stress test and the recording of transient contrasts during rewarming were found to be potentially suitable for tumour depth detection during the rewarming process.”

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282407541_Potentialities_of_steady-state_and_transient_thermography_in_breast_tumour_depth_detection_A_numerical_study

    Like

  490. Stuartg I have emailed NZBCF
    Hi,
    By saying “Save Lives through breast health education. Promote early detection through mammograms.” your website is implying that mammograms reduce mortality.

    According to this that may not be the case:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.29925/full

    Like

  491. soundhill,

    Remember your statement: “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    On what basis do you “believe” that?

    I must have asked about 30 times; all you have done is to cite small papers on thermography used as an investigation (otherwise known as impressing the naive with citations), fluster, divert, and produce precisely zero evidence to support your belief.

    GOs, NGOs and medical researchers around the world conclude that mammography is the best screening tool for breast cancer. Unanimously.

    “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.” You made the claim. It’s up to you to substantiate it.

    Conclusion: the only place where thermography is a better screening tool than mammography for breast cancer is within the conspiracist fantasy world located in soundhill’s brain.

    Like

  492. soundhill,

    “With the cameras and software of the 1970s apparently thermography was not very effricacious(sic) at breast cancer screening.”

    The massive lack of evidence you have provided, the FDA, breast cancer groups, NZBCF, BCAC, lots of others, all say it’s not efficacious today.

    “Some newer tests are being studied for breast imaging. These tests are in the earliest stages of research. It will take time to see if any are as good as or better than those used today.” – American Cancer Society http://www.cancer.org/treatment/understandingyourdiagnosis/examsandtestdescriptions/mammogramsandotherbreastimagingprocedures/mammograms-and-other-breast-imaging-procedures-newer-br-imaging-tests

    Like

  493. soundhill,

    “How many people do you think FDA would require in the test group?”

    The answer is in the reference I gave. Perhaps you could read it?

    Like

  494. Stuartg your cancer.org ref about “newer” treatments:
    Positron Emission Mammography 1991
    Molecular breast imaging 1999
    Optical imaging tests 1999
    Electrical impedance imaging 2001

    But dedicated mammography units did not appear till the 1980s and 1990s.

    It looks like they are trying to go slow with the “newer” techniques.

    And the warning letter to Mercola was not for another 10 years.

    mammo———-PEM———MBI,OIT–EII———-Merc—–today.

    I think one day they will come upon 21st century thermography.

    Like

  495. soundhill,

    “dedicated mammography units did not appear till the 1980s and 1990s.”

    Check your facts, soundhill. The year was 1966. Didn’t you catch the 50 year celebration in March?

    Of course, it can be subsequently noted that dedicated breast thermography units have yet to appear. That’s because there’s no evidence yet to show that it’s comparable to mammography as a screening tool.

    Interesting fact: dedicated mammography units entered the market 53 years after x-rays were first shown to be able to detect breast cancer. What does that imply for the marketing of a dedicated breast thermography unit?

    Breast thermography now is at about the same stage that mammography was in 1913. (Well, OK, I’m stretching it. Maybe 1933 to 1943).

    Like

  496. Stuartg where did you get your info?

    “The Advent of Mammography Screening

    In the 1960s, radiologists performed mammography exams using general purpose X-ray tubes and no compression. They captured the imaging onto direct-exposure films, similar to chest X-rays. These images were low in contrast and the area of tissue close to the chest wall appeared “white” due to underexposure.

    In the next decade, mammography advanced significantly with the introduction of screen-film mammography, which made imaging faster, required lower radiation dose, and provided greatest contract, making it easier to “see through” breast tissues. Improvements in screen-film technology and the establishment of dedicated mammography units during the 1980s and 1990s made mammography images increasingly better.”

    http://radiology.ucsf.edu/blog/advances-breast-imaging-evolution-history-mammography

    So there has been a lot of investment in machinery in the 80s/ 90s. My guess is they do not want it outmoded by something cheap if a little bit time consuming like EII which emerged around 2001. And the No Touch analyisis ad dynamic thermography of today, also very cheap and portable, would be a real threat to the investment 15 years ago in dedictaed breast x-ray mammography, often.

    Here is a recent example:

    https://info.blockimaging.com/bid/95356/digital-mammography-equipment-price-cost-info

    Price of a 0.05 degree thermal camera as available now is much lower, though you will still need the software.

    http://reductionrevolution.com.au/pages/flir-thermal-imaging-cameras?gclid=CjwKEAjwv7HABRCSxfrjkJPnrWgSJAA45qA2GLknGsS5G2VLBPgOQj5KCDl4XKdYm7BqBilPd05_sxoCdsnw_wcB

    Like

  497. soundhill,

    “Stuartg where did you get your info?”

    The same place as you. But maybe I have better search terms? Try looking for Senographe, the name of the first marketed mammography machine, and it’s date of marketing – 1966.

    Mind you, I only use sites based in reality. Unlike you, I ignore those sites that are based on fantasy.

    Like

  498. soundhill,

    Or maybe you could consider that I’ve got a few more decades of learning, practice and research than you?

    Maybe those years in high school learning science weren’t such a waste after all?

    And maybe those decades of subsequent learning do mean more than your few minutes using poor search terms on Google?

    Like

  499. soundhill,

    Tel me (and others) what the difference is between a dedicated mammography machine utilising the results of over a century of research, and a generalist thermography camera (with or without software) trying to look for breast cancer without any proven ability to screen for breast cancer.

    If you were female (from your comments, I assume you aren’t) would you prefer proven dedicated mammographic screening or speculative thermographic imaging?

    Actually, I know the answer – “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    Like

  500. So Stuartg impliees that
    Bonnie Joe, MD, PhD
    Professor
    Chief of Breast Imaging
    Co-Director, Breast Cancer RIG
    University of California, San Francisco.
    is talking fantasy in my ref.

    I have looked up your word, “Senographe.”:
    “The first ever mammographic unit was just a crystallographic x-ray tube mounted on a camera tripod in late 1965. It became the original Senographe in 1966, the first breast-dedicated mammography unit.”

    A high radiation dose and if you read back I was talking about screening, not diagnosis of cases sent by doctors. Ha ha!

    Like

  501. soundhill,

    By the way, a further response to your citation about Dr Thompson, aka the “CDC whistleblower” is from the Sceptical Raptor: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/cdc-refuses-william-thompson-testify/

    Perhaps we can now put that fantasy of yours to rest?

    Like

  502. My apologies for the spelling in my last comment; I’ve an English background and get confused with some American mis-spellings. Add to that my dyslexia…

    Like

  503. soundhill,

    Senographe was the commercial name for the first dedicated mammography machine marketed. In 1966.

    If you don’t think the Senographe was the first dedicated mammography machine marketed, in 1966, then please enlighten us to what was, citation obviously required.

    Diagnosis by x-ray started in 1913, as I said. Screening in 1966. If you have evidence otherwise, let us know, citation obviously required. Remember to distinguish between diagnosis and screening, although you haven’t managed to do so until now.

    The only person I referred to as living in a fantasy world is yourself. Look back. Read. If you have evidence that I am wrong, please show us your evidence. In fact, please show us the evidence that you’re not living in a fantasy world. You haven’t managed to do so thus far and I suspect that you won’t be able to do so in the future.

    Remember your comment: “I believe it (thermography) to be a better screening tool than mammography.”

    So far, absolutely no evidence to support it, in spite of approaching a month of requests.

    Like

  504. Stuartg when a l