Fluoridation & democracy: Open letter to DHB candidate Andrew Buckley

Community water fluoridation looks like becoming a hot topic in October’s elections to District Health Boards. Anti-fluoride candidates should stop preventing open discussion and critique of their unscientific claims.


Legislation transferring fluoridation consultation and decision-making tasks from councils to district health boards (DHBs) will probably be introduced into New Zealand’s parliament next year. Anti-fluoride activists are preparing for this by transferring their attention from councils to District Health Boards. In particular, they are standing candidates for elections to DHBs in October’s elections.

andrew-buckley

Andrew Buckley is standing for the Waikato District Health Board. He calls for open debate on the fluoridation issue but will not allow any critique of his claims in his web page discussion.

Andrew Buckley is a retired osteopath who is standing for the Waikato DHB. He is making community water fluoridation a central issue of his campaign and presented his views in a blog article – Fluoridation and democracy – and in a press release.

I welcome candidates who make their views clear on issues like this during their campaign where they can be discussed. But the problem with Andrew is that he does not seem to either want to discuss his claims or allow any discussion of them in the comments on his article. I contributed a comment which dealt with his claims point by point but he has not allowed it to appear – despite showing supportive comments from many of the usual anti-fluoride brigade.

This anti-democratic behaviour is ironic given that he was arguing for democracy and open debate on the issue. It is also deplorable that he prevent this open debate during an election campaign where he is making community water fluoridation a central issue.

As he won’t allow proper discussion on his web page I have put my comments into an open letter to Andrew. I, of course, offer him the right of reply here and welcome any contribution he can make to the discussion here.


Hi Andrew,

I welcome your declarations that you are “not pro- or anti-fluoridation as a matter of principle”  and decisions about community water fluoridation (CWF) “simply cannot and should not be made on the basis of hearsay and urban legend.”  However, the claims you make in this article (Fluoridation and democracy“) suggest you may have succumbed a few urban legends and been influenced by hearsay yourself.

Let’s consider some of your claims:

Hamilton City Council’s fluoridation fiasco

You claim the “Hamilton City Council councillors voted unanimously to stop” CWF – but that is just not true.

In June 2013 the council voted 7 to 1 (with several imposed abstentions) to stop CWF. There was public opposition to this decision as it ignored polling and a previous referendum result showing community support for fluoridation. A new referendum held along with the October 2013 local body elections again showed overwhelming public support for CWF and in March 2014 the council voted 9 to 1 in favour of reinstating CWF.

You claim the Hamilton City council “delivered a scathing commentary on the practice of fluoridation.” Could you identify that document and link to it? I am completely unaware of such a document despite having followed the issue closely at the time and having discussed the scientific basis of CWF with several councillors. My impression was that individual councillors were incapable of discussing the issue and, in fact, several councillors were very hostile towards science and scientists and very rude to correspondents as a result. I thought that highly disturbing for councillors in a city which houses several very reputable scientific institutions. But it seemed their stance, and emotive response, had more to do with pre-election political infighting than any appreciation of the science.

Are anti-fluoride claims validated?

You claim “validated claims of the multitude of opponents to water fluoridation [are] not refuted by sound supportive evidence in public debate.” Again not true.

Anti-fluoride activists like Paul Connett, Stan Litras, etc., often claim this but refuse to debate the issue themselves. I had one on-line debate with Paul Connett in 2013/2014 where (I believe) every claim he made was soundly refuted. You can find the record of that debate on my blog (Fluoride debate) or a pdf version of Fluoride Debate  from my publications on ResearchGate . This is quite substantial and covers most issues that are raised by opponents of CWF.

The claims made by opponents of CWF have not been scientifically validated and are often based on misinformation or distortions of the science. It is telling that since my debate with Paul Connett he has simply refused every opportunity I have offered him for a right of reply to my articles where I have critiqued his claims (see for example Misrepresenting fluoride science – an open letter to Paul Connett“). Similarly, Stan Litras has refused my offers of a right of reply in similar situations.

What about this “multitude?”

You are incorrect in using the word “multitude” as recent referenda have shown in New Zealand. This was confirmed in more detail by the NZ oral health survey as reported in this paper:

Whyman, R. A., Mahoney, E. K., & Børsting, T. (2015). Community water fluoridation: attitudes and opinions from the New Zealand Oral Health Survey. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.

I discussed date from this paper in my article Anti-fluoride propagandists get creative with statistics. The graph below summarises the data:

While support for CWF may not appear as massive as recent referenda results show (which don’t record the undecided), the fact that only about 10% of people are strongly opposed (and another 5% somewhat opposed) to CWF in the survey. This does suggest your use of the word “multitude” is an exaggeration.

The opponents of CWF may be very organised and vocal (a fact which has led councils to see the fluoridation issue as a poisoned chalice) but they basically represent the minority ideological and commercial interests of the alternative health industry – which in many cases funds their work and give avenues for their propaganda.

WHO data misrepresented

You claim “according to the World Health Organisation, [there is] an equal reduction of dental caries in countries throughout Europe, irrespective of whether there is water fluoridation or not” is just not true. You have blindly accepted a popular anti-fluoride urban legend.

In fact, the WHO data show different reductions of dental caries for different countries. The reductions are just not equal. Here is the graph that anti-fluoride activists often use to promote this urban legend:

Slide from Paul Connett’s 2016 New Zealand presentation

There is actually very little data for each country in this graphic (hence the predominance of straight lines). The bigger problem is that no sensible comparison can be made between countries without taking into account the multitude of factors which influence tooth decay and which vary from country to country and year to year. Surely that is obvious?The more sensible and scientifically accepted approach is to compare fluoridated and unfluoridated areas within countries. I discussed this in my article

The more sensible and scientifically accepted approach is to compare fluoridated and unfluoridated areas within countries. I discussed this in my article Misrepresenting fluoride science – an open letter to Paul Connett and illustrated it with the WHO data for Ireland where fluoridated and unfluoridated areas are compared:

People like Paul Connett and his followers promote this urban legend again and again – despite having been shown why it is wrong (for example in my debate with Connett). They are knowingly promoting a distortion of the facts.

CWF a “medicine?”

You ask “Why was fluoride removed from the medicines list . . ?” but CWF was never on a “medicines list” as you would be aware if you had read the High Court ruling in the case brought by the “natural”/alternative health industry lobby group New Health NZ against the South Taranaki District Council.

I refer to this in my article Corporate backers of anti-fluoride movement lose in NZ High Court but you could also read Justice Hansen’s  judgment. This was confirmed in Justice Collin’s ruling on the subsequent appeal (see Another legal defeat for NZ anti-fluoridation activists).

The concentrations of fluoride used in CWF are below that required for listing. As Justice Collins determined:

“when fluoride is added to domestic water supplies within the maximum allowable concentration of 1.5 mg/l the concentration of fluoride in domestic water supplies will be well below the concentration threshold required for fluoride to be a medicine in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.”

and

“ . . fluoride would be a medicine under the Act if it was added to domestic water supplies in concentrations of 10 mg/l or more.”

The only change to regulations was to introduce a clause clarifying that when chemicals like sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate are used for CWF they are not considered a medicine. A clarification, not a change.

Why transfer decision and consultation on CWF to DHBs?

You ask why the Minister of health has “decided to take the decision away from local authorities and give it to DHBs to decide?”

As you are a candidate for election to a  DHB you have a responsibility to consult the official documents outlining reasons for the proposed changes. I suggest you read Proposed legislative changes: decision-making on the fluoridation of drinking-water supplies,  Transferring decision-making on the fluoridation of drinking-water from local authorities to district health boards the cabinet paper Decision-making on the fluoridation of drinking-water supplies).

I also suggest you refer to discussions at the Local Government NZ conferences and individual council statements requesting that central government take responsibility for CWF decisions and consultations away from councils. As they have often argued, they do not have the expertise to consider the science involved and feel that they are unfairly exposed to a highly organised minority of ideologically and commercially motivated activists.

Questions for you, Andrew

Do you think a body like the elected DHB or local body councils are the appropriate place to make decisions about the science of health issues like CWF? After all, they do not have the expertise and surely such scientific decisions are not made by the board on other health issues relevant to all the procedures carried out in a hospital. Don’t you think that DHBs and Councils should instead rely on the best up-to-date reviews of the science by a body like the Royal Society of NZ?For example:

For example:

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

Surely the task for board member on this issue is to receive such up-to-date reviews, together with data from staff on the oral health issues in the area and the feasibility and likely efficacy of CWF. On top of that, they should take into account the balanced views of the community – using polls or referenda. This should then allow them to make an informed decision about any proposal for or against CWF in their region.

Getting bogged down with the activist claims and counter claims and their propaganda based on misinformation and distortions of the science (as happened initially with the Hamilton City Council) is certainly not a responsible approach.

Andrew, you criticised the democratic processes of the DHB for which you are standing. I cannot judge if your complaints are sincere as I have not see the full picture. But I certainly support your conclusion about this issue:

“I believe we must follow democratic process and proper debate.”

So, why have you denied the democratic process with your blog article Fluoridation and democracy? You did not allow my comment, which covered the areas above, while at the same time allowing comments from known anti-fluoride activists slavishly praising you for your article?

Does this illustrate the sort of rejection of open and democratic discussion you will follow if you are elected?

I believe voters have a right to know how you have purposely acted to prevent open discussion while hypocritically calling for it.

Surely that is a reason not to vote for you in the October elections?

Finally, Andrew, I offer you a right of reply to my open letter. I am willing to post a reply for you here. After all, I do support open discussion of the CWF issue and, particularly, I am keen that these “urban legends” and “hearsay” be properly debunked and their promoters exposed.

I look forward to a fruitful good-faith discussion.

Kind regards,

Ken Perrott

Similar articles

78 responses to “Fluoridation & democracy: Open letter to DHB candidate Andrew Buckley

  1. Of the numerous antifluoridationist websites on which I have attempted to post comments, I can remember only one that did not exercise censorship by not posting my comments. Of all the bluster antifluoridationists constantly put forth about how “science” supports their position, and how opposition to fluoridation “is growing”………in the end they are left depending on censorship of facts and evidence in order to impose their views onto the populace. They just seem oblivious to the fact that history is littered with the failures of those who attempted to stifle the free flow of information in this manner.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  2. The below is a recent exchange I had with Connett after a forum in New York involving he and Osmunson presenting information against fluoridation, with Johnny Johnson and I presenting info for the initiative. In watching Connett present I was honestly struck with pity at this fellow angrily ranting at the audience and at Dr. Johnson and me, obviously frustrated from years of having his views rejected time and time and time again. After the forum, I reached out to him in a friendly gesture. As can be seen, instead of responding in a reasonable manner to my answer to the question he posed to me, he got frustrated yet once again, got in his parting shot, took his toys, and went home in a huff. Typical.

    I gave you a chance to engage on a scientific level and you blew it. If science suits your purpose then you use it, if it doesn’t you switch to a different attack. I asked for the primary studies that have convinced YOU that you can safely ignore the 300 plus studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic (studies that are currently being reviewed by the NTP) and you gave me NONE. Such a response indicates to me that for some reason you are working backwards from the need to protect this practice at any cost. This is not science this is a religion. You have to live with that. I don’t. SO PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME ANY MORE EMAILS – if you do I will simply delete them unread. Goodbye.

    Paul

    On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Steve Slott wrote:
    There is no issue to resolve, Paul. In regard to the primary literature, PubMed lists over 53,000 studies on fluoride. If after culling that literature you can find no more than 300 that you believe supports your position, that constitutes approximately 0.5% of those studies. That leaves 99.5% that do not. I have looked at some of the studies you have on “fluoridealert”, in the past, and found them either not relevant to fluoride at the level at which water is fluoridated, or to not demonstrate any problem with fluoride at that level.

    I appreciate your concern for exposure of children to toxins, however, if we are to eliminate their exposure to all substance which are toxic, without regard to concentration level, or amount, they will be able to ingest absolutely nothing and will be dead within a week.

    In its reasoning for recommending lowering of the primary fluoride MCL, 2006 NRC did not express any concern of neurotoxicity of fluoride at 4.0 ppm. Had they had such concern, they would have been responsible for so stating and recommending accordingly.

    Steve

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Burlington, NC. 27216

    Sent from my iPad

    On Sep 13, 2016, at 8:23 AM, Paul Connett wrote:

    Thank you for your kind words Steve.

    When you get a chance please send me links to the primary literature that has convinced you that we can safely ignore all the evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic. I can’t believe that you would be content to expose a child from a low-income family to a neurotoxic substance. Would you support a moratorium on fluoridation until this issue is resolved?

    On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Steve Slott wrote:
    Paul,

    It was a pleasure to have met and seen you in action last week. Although we differ in opinion, I do respect your passion and commitment to that which you are convinced is right. I am, however, going to have to educate you northerners on the virtues of air conditioning, though……

    Steve

    Like

  3. “PubMed lists over 53,000 studies on fluoride. If after culling that literature you can find no more than 300 that you believe supports your position, that constitutes approximately 0.5% of those studies. That leaves 99.5% that do not.”
    But about all aspects of fluoride.
    I could also say it provides the following articles:
    fluoride “no adverse” 65 results
    fluoride adverse 4134 results

    Like

  4. Go Ken…!!! he who blocks discussion on his own website when it suits him…

    LOL

    Ron Law Risk & Policy Adviser

    >

    Like

  5. Brian, try checking the number of studies showing adverse effects for CWF.

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  6. Jeez Ken – you call that a ‘debate’ with Paul Connett when you were doing all the moderating and calling the shots – not my idea of a proper debate but then I’m probably ‘old school’ from before corporates had bought up most fields of science.

    Like

  7. So, Mighty Mouse, why do you think Paul is too scared to take up my offers of right of reply?

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  8. Hi Ken,
    Thanks for taking the time to comment on my article entitled Fluoridation and Democracy – andrewbuckley.co.nz/fluoridation-and-democracy. Also, thanks for the heads-up on your publication on this website.
    Whilst I appreciate your obvious enthusiasm for the subject matter, I’m not an expert on fluoridation, nor do I plan to become one. I’m not voted into my position to take a stand for or against fluoridation, I’m voted in to ensure that good governance takes place.
    I believe that good governance doesn’t involve lobbyists “battling it out” with a win-lose outcome to a discussion or debate.
    I believe that good governance in the health sector must result in a win-win outcome to solving a health problem.
    I believe that good governance involves considering all sides of a story rather than relying on a one-sided source.
    I believe that good governance is about applying non-emotive objectivity when studying a comprehensive spectrum of information, using “critical think” rather than “group think”, using practical wisdom when decision-making and ensuring that we apply effective measures to assess the impact of our resource allocation on whatever issue is to be addressed. In the example I used, dental caries is the issue but it’s the same for addictions, cancers, etc.. We must fund whatever has the most positive impact on the health or social issue to be addressed.

    Whilst I can certainly appreciate the community’s desire to debate and discuss an issue like this, the comments section of an article on about governance and democracy is not the place to do it, hence I did not publish your lengthy treatment of the issue. You’ll note than in my article I did not promote one side or the other, I merely shared with my readers some questions that arose during the course of pursuing my professional curiosity.

    Finally, thanks for taking an interest in the governance of the Waikato DHB.

    Kind regards,
    Andrew.

    Like

  9. Ken fluoridation “no adverse” 2 studies
    fluoridation adverse 834 studies.

    Like

  10. Andrew, you claim:

    “Whilst I can certainly appreciate the community’s desire to debate and discuss an issue like this, the comments section of an article on about governance and democracy is not the place to do it, hence I did not publish your lengthy treatment of the issue.”

    Yet you engaged in discussion with your slavishly anti-fluoride mates in support of their comments. And it was not just a matter of refusing to allow a “lengthy” comment from me – you refused all my comments – despite most of them being no longer than one sentence.

    Your refusal to allow my comment and to allow any discussion with me also contradicts an assurance given to me in your email – I quote the relevant section here:

    “I had intended to reply to you. I was away from my computer during the whole of yesterday.
    One problem I was trying to sort out was whether people who commented wanted anonymity or to be in the public arena.
    I have no problem responding to your comments and questions, which I’ll do later.”

    And, despite having been given plenty of room here for a right of reply – in a separate post rather than a comment – you have decided not to have any sensible discussion of the issue or your article at all.

    Andrew, you have behaved in exactly the same way as most New Zealand anti-fluoride web sites and Facebook pages which ban any comments from scientists or people with a scientific perspective who question the misleading interpretations and distortions of the science presented on those pages.

    You say:

    “ in my article I did not promote one side or the other, I merely shared with my readers some questions that arose during the course of pursuing my professional curiosity.”

    Do you really expect anyone to believe that? Why did you get such slavish comments endorsing you from the usual anti-fluoride activists? Why are they promoting you and your article on their Facebook pages?

    You made specific claims in your questions which are factually incorrect – and are the urban legends and hearsay that the anti-fluoride brigade promote. Your clear purpose was to further promote such lies.

    OK, you have been caught supporting arguments you cannot defend because they do not conform to reality. The sensible person simply admits their mistake and apologises in such situations – but you haven’t.

    Andrew, it is ironic that you have claimed “validated claims of the multitude of opponents to water fluoridation not refuted by sound supportive evidence in public debate” yet you have refused to allow anyone to provide the real supportive evidence in the public debate on your web site. You are in fact suppressing the scientific evidence on this issue.

    It is also ironic that you have suppressed my comments – either a “lengthy” one or even in a short sentence on your web – yet you take advantage of the openness here to comment at length in a way that is simply cynically promoting your own personal candidacy. I guess you would be up in arms if I banned you from commenting because you take advantage of my blog to promote yourself politically.

    Your talk about governance, objectivity, “considering all sides of a story rather than relying on a one-sided source.” “using “critical think” rather than “group think,”” is simply cynical political bluster.

    Why should anyone vote for a candidate who behaves in this way?

    Like

  11. OK Brian, let’s look at your 800 fluoridation odd studies.

    Please cite the ones you consider your best.

    I am happy to examine all that you produce.

    And only a fool would accept there are only 2 studies showing a lack of harm from CWF.

    Like

  12. Ken my comment was in regard to this exchange which Steve reports:
    Paul Connett: “I asked for the primary studies that have convinced YOU that you can safely ignore the 300 plus studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic (studies that are currently being reviewed by the NTP) and you gave me NONE.”
    Steve Slott: ” In regard to the primary literature, PubMed lists over 53,000 studies on fluoride. If after culling that literature you can find no more than 300 that you believe supports your position, that constitutes approximately 0.5% of those studies. That leaves 99.5% that do not.”

    My point was that those 300 are being compared by Steve Slott against the 53,000 most of which have nothing to do with fluoridation or health effects of fluoride at such a concentration.

    I could look through the cites and comment on relevance , but please ask the same of Steve Slott.

    Like

  13. Sounhill

    “I could also say it provides the following articles: fluoride “no adverse” 65 results fluoride adverse 4134 results”

    Yeah, sure, soundhill. That’s exactly the point. Connett can say whatever he wants about the scientific literature. In the absence of proper citation, and documentation of what actually is concluded in his “300 studies”, his claim about them is as meaningless as my statement, and yours.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  14. Soundhill

    I believe you mean…..”ask the same of Paul Connett”. I simply pointed out the absurdity of his claim of “300 studies”. It’s clear example of your confirmation bias that you criticized my comment, but not Connett’s.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  15. Andrew

    It could not be any clearer that you are an uninformed antifluoridationist who relies solely on misinformation lazily gleaned from antifluoridationist websites, and censorship of facts and evidence…….if you wore a big flashing neon sign to that effect hung around your neck.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  16. Actually, Soundhill, what Connett is obviously fishing for with his “300 studies” challenge is the citing of Broadbent as example of the peer-reviewed science which refutes the IQ reduction nonsense……so he can then attempt to discredit Broadbent with his personal assessment of that study. The hypocrisy is that while he trashes Broadbent, he puts complete faith in the infamous “27 Chinese studies” which are so seriously flawed and inadequate that even Grandjean and Choi publicly stated that no conclusions could be drawn from them in regard to fluoridation in the US.

    When I didn’t give Connett what he was fishing for, he got frustrated and went into his rant.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  17. Brian, you comment was made to me and was in response to my point:

    “Brian, try checking the number of studies showing adverse effects for CWF.”

    To wich you responded:

    “Ken fluoridation “no adverse” 2 studies
    fluoridation adverse 834 studies.”

    And I asked:

    “OK Brian, let’s look at your 800 fluoridation odd studies.

    Please cite the ones you consider your best.

    I am happy to examine all that you produce.

    And only a fool would accept there are only 2 studies showing a lack of harm from CWF.”

    So you avoid my question. You can’t even find one credible study related to CWF. And you attempt to fob the issue back to Paul Connett.

    The point about Paul’s claims is that none of his studies related to CWF. Neither do yours.

    Typical anti-fluorine obfuscation.

    Like

  18. When you look at the comments on the original page now, they are all anti fluoride.
    So Andrew must be using the same censorship rules as the anti fluoride blog sites. If it shows any statement that goes against the activist agenda it will never see the light of day
    To me a person who wont publicly declare their agenda before the election But shows a definite bias one way or the other, Is just there to enhance there own views, and vote solely on the best way to achieve them, regardless of the greater good of the community

    Like

  19. Not surprised at the remarks from the pro fluoridation zealots – I would prefer to follow someone like Dr Ben Goldacre who not only questions the motivation of some who defend the status quo but is prepared to be open and honest about the means by which they skew the so-called settled science. http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science?language=en

    Like

  20. And a further consideration about the issue of bad science –
    14th September 2016
    In a landmark report released today, the United Nations called on governments worldwide to pass legislation requiring clinical trials to be registered, and their methods and results to be fully reported. The report, authored by a high-level panel appointed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, explicitly calls for clinical trial study designs, protocols, data sets, and test results to be made publicly available.

    Sile Lane, director of campaigns and policy at Sense About Science, which runs the AllTrials campaign, commented that

    It is fantastic that the UN has today added its voice to the call for more clinical trial transparency. The UN’s report sets out many of the problems that the nearly 700 organizations who are part of the AllTrials campaign are striving to fix, and proposes some real solutions. Anyone who is not already working to overcome these problems should join us now.

    Launched in 2013, the AllTrials campaign calls for all clinical trials past and present to be registered, and their methods and results to be fully reported.

    Like

  21. Trev, I did make a brief reply to your slavish comment on Andrews article – he refused to publish it. Do you think this undemocratic action is something you can support?

    But, once again you are raving on about things that are quite unrelated to the subject of my article. The usual attempted diversion.

    Mind you, Andrew was repeating some myths propagated by the anti-fluoride movement which are definitely bad science. And promoted by people like you who continually misrepresent and distort the science.

    This is, of course, why Andrew refused me the opportunity to correct his claims.

    Like

  22. Ken, Steve Slott has now explained, in reply to my comment, that he is implying Paul Connett’s 300 chosen articles probably have no more relevance to our health than the 53,000 which PubMed have which mention fluoride in them, many of which have nothing directly to do with living organisms because PubMed also searches chemistry, physics and materials science journals etc.

    Like

  23. Brian – my question was specifically about fluoridation. You claimed you could find more than 800 papers showing harm from fluoridation. Yet, when pushed, you cannot produce even one.

    More than 800 – my arse.

    Like

  24. Ken, again from Sep 18:
    “YOU that you can safely ignore the 300 plus studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic (studies that are currently being reviewed by the NTP) and you gave me NONE.”
    Steve Slott: ” In regard to the primary literature, PubMed lists over 53,000 studies on fluoride. If after culling that literature you can find no more than 300 that you believe supports your position, that constitutes approximately 0.5% of those studies. That leaves 99.5% that do not.”

    My point was that those 300 are being compared by Steve Slott against the 53,000 most of which have nothing to do with fluoridation or health effects of fluoride at such a concentration.

    I could look through the cites and comment on relevance , but please ask the same of Steve Slott.”

    Of course 99.5% are not supporting Connett’s 30 because they are about all sorts of fluoride things. Such thinks as reagents like phenylmethlysulphonyl fluoride and many things not used in the human body.

    But the way he wrote it could be interpreted by the uncritical reader to say that 99.5% of PubMed studies say fluoride is safe.

    So I put up another plausible-to-the-uncritical-reader example from PubMed.

    Indeed “no adverse” effect of stopping fluoridation for a while might be a claim. It does not have to be “no adverse effect of fluoridation.”

    Like

  25. Brian, stop avoiding the issue.

    I asked how many of the citations showed harm from CWF.

    You say 850.

    I asked for examples

    You avid the issue because you have none.

    Like

  26. Ken: “I asked how many of the citations showed harm from CWF.

    You say 850.”

    No I said how many citations from PubMed contained the words, “fluoridation” and “adverse.”

    Without going through many studies yet I want to introduce the concept of interacting variables. Stuartg has recently expressed confidence in isolation of variables, which I have suggested to be inadequate. I gave examples of concrete or dental composite mixing.

    You weren’t happy about the fluoride/iodine interaction of Lin FF.

    Here is some analysis describing interaction terms:

    http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/interpreting-interactions-in-regression/

    Like

  27. Besides the separate concepts of confounding and interaction, it is also needed to account for mediation.

    https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/cqs/files/cqs/media/2010WilliamMay2010.pdf

    Like

  28. “Stuart has recently expressed confidence in isolation of variables”…

    Only in soundhill’s world of fantasy.

    What I actually said was that in order to find out if CWF has any detrimental effects, soundhill, in his planned paper on CWF and childhood myopia, would have to compensate for any effect from fluoride tablets, fluoride treatment, school deciles, degree of deprivation, racial effects, time spent with books, time spent with phones, etc.

    After all, if he released a paper to the world showing myopia in children with CWF, but then other researchers said something like “no, it’s because those children were not allowed sufficient play time outside to allow their eyes to develop distance vision,” he’d look even more of a wally than he does with his current comments.

    Like

  29. Brian – could you please indicate in which comment responding to my question you said that you were listing the number of “citations from PubMed contained the words, “fluoridation” and “adverse.””?

    The fact is you didn’t.

    This may, in fact, be what you did but, as I have demonstrated before such an approach can be used to show water is far more toxic that fluoride. This is not a rational answer to my question. IIy is an extremely idiotic way of answering such a question – but typical of the anti-fluoride anti-scientific mind.

    How can you sleep straight in your bed at night with such a habit of childish lying?

    Like

  30. I wrote:“Stuart has recently expressed confidence in isolation of variables”…

    Stuartg replied: “Only in soundhill’s world of fantasy.”

    On Sep 20 Stuartg had written:
    “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.”

    Like

  31. Ken harsh words.
    You were responding to my comment to Steve:
    soundhill1 | September 18, 2016 at 1:08 pm
    He had written:

    “PubMed lists over 53,000 studies on fluoride. If after culling that literature you can find no more than 300 that you believe supports your position, that constitutes approximately 0.5% of those studies. That leaves 99.5% that do not.”
    I replied:
    “But about all aspects of fluoride.
    I could also say it provides the following articles:
    fluoride “no adverse” 65 results
    fluoride adverse 4134 results”

    Then you, Ken, came in and asked for CWF (community water fluoridation) instead of fluoride.

    Instead of searching CWF I gave the results for fluoridation.

    Ken you seem to be trying to lead this discourse away from where it was my comment on Steve’s Slott’s comment which contained:
    “There is no issue to resolve, Paul. In regard to the primary literature, PubMed lists over 53,000 studies on fluoride. If after culling that literature you can find no more than 300 that you believe supports your position, that constitutes approximately 0.5% of those studies. That leaves 99.5% that do not.”

    But you didn’t suggest to Steve to limit his commenting to CWF, or at least adverse health effects of fluoride, which is what Paul’s 300 studies are about.

    Well I agree to change the import of my comment, but while I analyse I hope you agree to consider mediative effects, say where one effect has to follow another variable, and interactive effects, where two (or more than two) effects act together to influence another. Those effects in addition to confoundment, please, in which variables separately but additively affect another.

    Stuartg wrote: “After all, if he released a paper to the world showing myopia in children with CWF, but then other researchers said something like “no, it’s because those children were not allowed sufficient play time outside to allow their eyes to develop distance vision,” he’d look even more of a wally than he does with his current comments.”

    Stuartg I think it is you looking the “Wally” by not knowing about interactive, mediative as well as confounding variables.

    Other effects to consider could be the move to smaller apartments without gardens big enough to run round and have trampolines in, and as I said the move to toddlers learning by age two or earlier to be very clever with Ipads and such. Then there will be a need to look at influence of working parents who are more likely to entertain children with such toys, and where they live, now work is more on line for many.

    DHBs with greater rurality could have population density factored in as some indicator of change for being outside or even in bigger rooms.

    Some of those things will be influenced by ethnicity, I suspect, and there is possibly genetics to sort out.

    Like

  32. What the hell does this mean Brian?

    “Instead of searching CWF I gave the results for fluoridation.”

    Yes I did specifically ask for citations showing harm from fluoridation. You claimed about 850 and only 2 showing no harm.

    Both figures are complete rubbish and this is shown by you complete inability to give a single reputable citation.

    But completely typical of the lies we get form the rabid anti-fluoridation propagandists.

    Like

  33. Ken I did not claim that number.

    Now Steve has explained he was trying to say Paul’s list of 300 may be random and no better than his (Steve’s) 85,000 list, isn’t it.

    I am a bit busy but I shall dissect that a bit more later.

    Now you are taking us to actual harm investigation, rather than just putting up numbers which may or not indicate harm.

    In case you could not see it before I have change my iodide/fluoride/IQ videograph to WMV format.

    I combine two studies. I hope you can see the iodide in the red, and fluoride in the green horizontal axes, and IQ on the blue vertical axis.

    [video src="http://users.snap.net.nz/~bsandle/Lin_Hong_low_iodine_fluoride_IQ.wmv" /]

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Sorry – not 850 but 834. What difference does that make? In fact, you did not produce a single study you could cite showing harm from fluoridation.

    Brian, I asked:

    “Brian, try checking the number of studies showing adverse effects for CWF.”

    To which you responded:

    “Ken fluoridation “no adverse” 2 studies
    fluoridation adverse 834 studies.”

    And I asked:

    “OK Brian, let’s look at your 800 fluoridation odd studies.

    Please cite the ones you consider your best.

    I am happy to examine all that you produce.

    And only a fool would accept there are only 2 studies showing a lack of harm from CWF.”

    You can’t even find one credible study related to CWF. And you attempt to confuse the issue.

    Like

  35. soundhill,

    Could you please point out the person on this thread who has isolated fluoride as the cause of multiple problems?

    Then can you point out the commenters who have said that that person, in isolating fluoride without any evidence, has focussed solely on that isolation to the exclusion of multiple other variables that can contribute to the problems?

    Like

  36. Stuartg: “multiple problems”
    The fluorine atom is the most electronegative. So like my weather station with flattening batteries various attributes worsen by degrees, depending on distance to base station, day/night, rain etc.

    Isn’t it you who wish to do isolation? I am talking about interactions. I am including other variables, iodine, COMT polymorphism or not, amount of water being consumed in proportion to body weight, whether the water has been boiled down, stage of development, calcium/other dietary input, whether inside +- 2SD or into the tails of the IQ distribution, other genetics, rate of water drinking affecting of fluoride getting to enolase of beneficial gut bacteria, kidney health, other toxic load: Roundup, reducing capacity to detoxify and spermatogenesis.

    I think there are better ways to deal with the planetary crisis of overpopulation though FDA mighn’t want it discussed, There’s conspiracy bait for you.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-fda-manipulates-the-media/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160922

    Like

  37. soundhill,

    So did you, or didn’t you, isolate community water fluoridation as the cause of, let’s see:
    Myopia
    Lowering of intelligence
    Kidney health
    Poor sports team performance (cherry picked teams only)
    Individual sporting performance (cherry picked individuals only)
    – for none of which you have provided any evidence to support your beliefs

    As Ken said, “Fluoride or no fluoride for any ailment under the sun.”

    My own comment: 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.

    So, did you, or did you not, isolate fluoride as the cause of multiple problems?

    Like

  38. KenL “Sorry – not 850 but 834. What difference does that make? In fact, you did not produce a single study you could cite showing harm from fluoridation.”

    I did not say 834 showing harm either. I only said that “fluoridation” appeared that number of time with “adverse.” And I got the result I wanted: a better statement from Steve Slott.

    To study whether fluoridation has adverse affects we must first agree on definitions of those terms.

    Over the course of studies which may be available there will have been a reduction in ppm and changes in the formulation.

    As we discussed a little bit some fluoridation uses silica which may reduce type II diabetes blood sugar scores. So my “best” fluoridation study would try to “isolate” that and flow-on effects. Probably look at the effect on IQ of water with varying silica amounts but low fluoride, first.

    Or go for studying towns using sodium fluoride. They may be smaller, adding need to find if that has any effect.

    What do you allow as “adverse”? Would you define it via a shift of the mean? What fraction of an SD would you require? Would you be bothered with tails of the distribution? Would you still say people should be proud that some of their ameloblasts have been deactivated, thinking they are prettier?

    Are you prepared to allow noting of confounding, interacting and/or mediating pesticide environment?

    Though people are being advised to use less salt, which is our main source of iodine do you wish to rule out studies which take low iodine diets into account?

    Let’s get these things agreed first so I do not waste time.

    Like

  39. Brian, I asked:

    “Brian, try checking the number of studies showing adverse effects for CWF.”

    To which you responded:

    “Ken fluoridation “no adverse” 2 studies
    fluoridation adverse 834 studies.”

    Only a cretin or ideologically motivated person with no sense of honesty would interpret that question to mean “do a naive search for articles containing the words “adverse effects:” and “fluoride.” I have shown several times the folly of such an approach using the words “water” and “toxic.”

    Oof course, that is what you did. Now you surely know I am not a fool and am quite aware of how naive anti-fluoride activists use the scientific literature.

    Why did you think you could fool me this way?

    Like

  40. soundhill,

    In a discussion, either party can define a term. That means that you yourself can define what you mean by “adverse effects”. Go ahead – nobody is stopping you.

    As to wasting your time?

    Carry on with what you are doing.

    You’re giving a good demonstration of how not to go about investigating a question that has already been settled.

    Like

  41. Stuartg I have tried using implied definitions of the terms before but not had them accepted.

    I have said for a long term I am interested in the tails of the distribution, in which I presume top sports people could reside. Your “definition” of looking at exceptional cases appears to be “cherry picking.”

    Ken I wasn’t trying to be tricky any more than Steve Slott with his figure 99.5% of PubMed fluoride refs not being about adverse health effects.

    Like

  42. Ken I see you writing on stuff a few days ago saying Mercola is “snake oil.” Actually it turns out he is ahead of the times. I do not advise anyone to suddenly stop statins, because there can be serious rebound effects. But Mercola was an early doctor to warn about them. Take a look here:

    http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/446704

    Like

  43. I should introduce a policy of banning advertising here – especially for snake oil salespeople.

    Brian, why don’t you get your won blog and you can promote this rubbish to your hearts content. You are just being underhand to take advantage of an open commenting policy to introduce advertisements like this rubbish. It is typical of you to ignore the content of articles and attempt to use them for you own purposes. Even commercial advertising for a big business like this one.

    Like

  44. Ken the journal has nothing to do with Mercola as far as I know.

    It is just that it is academically relating about statins and related matters and life span, which Mercola also talked of a while back.

    The journal it is in has an impact factor of about 1.6 which I think is quite good for a journal which gives some space to consumer caution, though this article is much wider than that, and is not making recommendations (your word “advertising”)

    Medicines and Vegetable Oils as Hidden Causes of Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes
    Okuyama H.a · Langsjoen P.H.b · Ohara N.c · Hashimoto Y.d · Hamazaki T.e · Yoshida S.f · Kobayashi T.g · Langsjoen A.M.b
    aNagoya City University, and Institute for Consumer Science and Human Life, Midoriku, Nagoya, Japan; bClinical Cardiology Practice, Tyler, Tex., USA; cCollege of Pharmacy, Kinjo Gakuin University, Omori, Moriyamaku, Nagoya, Japan; dDepartment of Biochemistry, School of Dentistry, Aichi-Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan; eToyama University, and Toyama Onsen Daini Hospital, Toyama, Japan; fDepartment of Chemistry and Biomolecular Science, Graduate School of Engineering, Gifu University, Gifu, Japan; gGraduate School of Humanities and Sciences/Institute for Human Life Innovation, Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan

    Like

  45. Ken you brought up Mercola on July 14.
    and the 5 days ago on the Manawatu Standard on Stuff in relation to Andrew Buckley the topic of this thread where you said:
    “OpenParachute
    When it comes to fluoridation the lobbying against it comes from the “natural”/alternative health industry. The NZ Health Trust which is such a lobby group for the NZ industry has spent hundreds of thousands in their High Court campaigns against fluoridation. Paul Connett and his Fluoride Action Network in the US is financed by Mercola.com – an alternative health business selling snake oil.
    And now you are saying:
    “I look forward to a fruitful good-faith discussion.”

    I do not believe Mercola to be selling snake oil.
    By listing him that way in a comment relating to Buckley I think it to discredit Buckey and requires an answer if this is to be a fruitful good-faith discussion.

    Like

  46. soundhill,

    If you imply definitions, you are not defining them.

    Try defining them instead.

    After all, that’s what scientists do.

    But since you’re not a scientist…

    Like

  47. soundhill,

    “I do not believe Mercola to be selling snake oil”

    We know your belief. Have you looked into the sales that occur from his web site?

    Like

  48. Stuartg: “You’re giving a good demonstration of how not to go about investigating a question that has already been settled.”

    Settled by redefining fluoride damage as not fluoride damage if it happens through interaction with low iodine, even if the low iodine was not low enough to cause the damage without the fluoride.

    Settled by redefining the damage to the ameloblasts and consequent marked teeth as not damage, but pretty.

    Like

  49. Mercola usually sells better versions of stuff available in supermarkets and from other companies.

    He won’t be sometimes avoiding exuding a bit of confidence, I presume. For many treatments placebo may be 55% of the cure.

    Stuartg have you ever told a child the treatment you were going to give has a less than 100% success rate? Don’t you think their confidence in being healed helps the healing?

    Like

  50. soundhill,

    “have you ever told a child the treatment you are going to give has less than 100% success rate?”

    Of course I have. Children understand that things don’t always work out how we expect them to.

    Some adults, though, will believe in their idols, even, or especially when science shows that all they are peddling is snake oil…

    Like

  51. soundhill,

    “redefining fluoride damage as not fluoride damage” – Citations required.

    Why would that stop you from producing your own definitions? As long as you give valid references as to why you would change the definitions.

    Like

  52. soundhill,

    Without damaging or removing teeth, tell us how “damage to the ameloblasts” can be clinically assessed and how such an assessment can be related to factors such as calcium concentration as well as to your isolated fluoride.

    Like

  53. “snake oil…”
    How about specific examples rather than vague generalisations?

    Like

  54. Ameloblasts form the tooth enamel. If they are damaged as by fluoride or by trauma to the baby tooth, then the permanent tooth enamel does not form properly, and gets the characteristic “dental fluorosis” marking.

    If calcium/vitamin D has been lacking the child will become bandy-legged, “rickets”, too.

    Like

  55. Don’t be so naively disingenuous, Brian.

    This from Wikipedia:

    “Snake oil, originally a fraudulent liniment without snake extract, has come to refer to any product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, a snake oil salesman is someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods or who is themselves a fraud, quack, or charlatan.”

    Applies to Mercola, doesn’t it? Even if you just take the fluoride issue Mercola is a fraud and a quack.

    Like

  56. No. At one stage Mercola was ahead of the game selling sunbeds producing UVB as well as the UVA which most tanning beds of the time only produced. He claimed health benefits of the UVB, but FDA did not apporve. Instread of appealing he stopped selling them so as to be able to continue to deabte the issue and educate which being part of a court case would have stopped. Anyway the other beds caught up and started to produce UVB so his work was done to an extent. He works for public health as his goal.

    Then there was the case of thermography. He upset the mammography crowd.

    Mammography, because of the xray risk, should only be done every two years. But the problem breast cancers grow fast. Two years is way too far apart. Even though an xray can detect a lump better than a physical palpatation by a trained person the palapatation can be done frequently so is better at saving lives.

    Besides xrays result in a lot of unnecessary biopsies.

    Thermography is a useful tool to use since it shows a change in the surface temperature of the breast when there is underlying trouble. Or it can be used for detecting inflamation patterns for other conditions. But the xray crowd won, much to the detriment of sufferers, by suppressing the use of thermography as one tool in screening for abnormalities.

    Like

  57. Sorry not “palpatation”, “palpation.”
    Thermography is not snake oil it is a useful diagnosing adjunct.

    A human hand can detect changes in temperature of areas of skin, too. But thermography allows a record to be kept.

    FDA is out of line.

    Like

  58. Some thermographs shown:

    https://www.irjet.net/archives/V3/i4/IRJET-V3I4211.pdf

    also
    “Conclusions

    IR1 imaging sign could be a potential imaging marker to predict prognosis in patients with invasive breast cancers with stage I, II or node-negative disease. IR5 sign was associated with overall mortality in breast cancer patients with node-negative disease. In the future, recruitment of more study participants to validate our results, and use of IR to monitor treatment response for patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy are needed.”

    https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-016-2602-9

    Like

  59. soundhill,

    “Thermography” has been shown to be useless in detection of breast cancer. Too many causes of changes in skin temperature. Yet Mercola continues to market it, meeting the definition of snake oil salesman.

    I’ll repeat my question: without damaging or extracting the teeth, how can “damage to ameloblasts” be assessed. Your “answer” was about damage to teeth, not ameloblasts.

    In other words, although you gave an “answer”, it wasn’t an answer to the question that was asked.

    Like

  60. Stuartg: ““Thermography” has been shown to be useless in detection of breast cancer. Too many causes of changes in skin temperature.”

    Let’s see your refs to see if they were doing it properly.

    From my cite:
    “Imaging Instruction Skin surface temperature is greatly
    affected by various conditions. In order to reduce the errors
    due to thermal artifacts, above images are taken using a recommended set of instructions to ensure the usefulness
    and consistency of thermal images. For Thermal Breast Scan,
    certain protocols must be followed in order to ensure that the
    images convey accurate information is mentioned below.
    1. No prolonged sun exposure to the chest and breast areas 5
    days before the scan.
    2. Use of lotions, creams, powders, or makeup on the breasts
    should be avoided, and there should b
    e no use of deodorants
    or antiperspirants on the day of exam.
    3. No shaving (or other types of hair removal) of the chest,
    breasts, or under arm
    s for 24 hours before the scan.
    4. No exercise before 6 hours prior to the scan
    5. No physical stimulation of the breasts before 24 hours of
    the scan.
    Thermographic Procedure
    1) Breast
    Thermography is a 15 min non-invasive test. It is an
    important procedure for alerting the Doctor to the changes
    that can indicate early stage Breast cancer.
    2) The chest area must be cooled with an air conditioner for
    approximately10-15 minutes during the
    process.
    3) The room temperature is adjusted approximately 22
    degrees Celsius and darkened during the test.”

    Like

  61. soundhill,

    You’ve got it wrong. Science doesn’t work that way.

    You claim that thermography works, so you need show us the validatory testing that supports your claim.

    However: https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.nzbcf.org.nz/Portals/0/Documents/mammography_and_breast_thermography_april2010.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj6zITJw7DPAhXGJJQKHWvjAdgQFggeMAA&usg=AFQjCNHnDHnYLur7iHcBp-pUxslFgPULag&sig2=A862LaQWJ2fJPzWyGvDbFA

    Like

  62. soundhill,

    Your snake oil salesman idol on thermography: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2011/ucm250701.htm

    Like

  63. Stuartg: “You’ve got it wrong. Science doesn’t work that way.”

    I think it does. You have to use the proper technique. Going by your assertion if a mammography experiment were being challenged they would not be able to ask if the breast were properly flattened.

    Like

  64. soundhill,

    If someone states something on a scientific blog, they are expected to be able to substantiate it.

    When soundhill1 states something on the same blog, he expects everyone else to believe his fantasies without question. If anything, he expects others to fall over in the rush to prove what he says.

    Vast difference.

    You really do need to take a high school class in science and learn what science is!

    You said thermography works, but gave no evidence. That’s not science, in spite of your fantasy belief that it is.

    I gave you the evidence that thermography doesn’t work, and that, in spite of knowing that it doesn’t work, your osteopath idol Mercola continues to sell thermography as a modern equivalent of snake oil.

    Now, do you have any evidence to support your fantasies? Or are you going to continue to ignore the scientific method?

    Like

  65. Stuartg: “I gave you the evidence that thermography doesn’t work”

    You stated: “Too many causes of changes in skin temperature”

    So I gave you a list of causes and what a good thermographer does about them, and asked whether the people making your claim had the correct technique. If they didn’t that falsifies your claim.

    Like

  66. From Stuartg’s google:
    “Mammography Purpose

    Detection of unsuspected early breast cancer
    (screening mammography) and diagnosis of breast
    abnormalities (diagnostic mammography)”

    Breast Thermography Purpose
    Promoted as a tool for breast assessment and breast cancer risk evaluation”

    Because thermography sees changes in breast termperature patterns several years before mammography detects a lump.

    “Thermography is a particularly good choice for younger breasts, which tend to be denser. It doesn’t identify fibrocystic tissue, breast implants, or scars as needing further investigation. It’s also good at detecting changes in the cells in the arm pit area, an area that mammography isn’t always good at screening. Perhaps even more exciting is that a thermogram can help a woman diagnosed with ductal carconoma in situ (DCIS) decide, along with her health practitioners, whether she requires aggressive or conservative treatment. If you’ve ever had an unnecessary biopsy or been scared by a false positive result on a mammogram, please consider getting a thermogram and using it in conjunction with the mammogram to figure out your treatment options.”
    http://www.drnorthrup.com/best-breast-test/

    That’s a few years old.

    Like

  67. soundhill,

    “That’s a few years old.”

    Yes, and so is the proof that thermography doesn’t work. That proof is why thermography was abandoned in the 1970s.

    I asked you to provide proof to back your fantasy about thermography – and all you can provide is an opinion piece that’s about as valid a piece of evidence as one of your or Mercola’s fantasies.

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

    Like

  68. soundhill,

    Science requires that if you make a statement, you are required to back up that statement. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/09/27/dont-tell-people-to-google-it-thats-your-job-not-theirs/

    I was aware that you didn’t have any evidence to support your fantasy about thermography, because it was proven useless decades ago. So – quick search on Google because I didn’t have it to hand – I provide some local evidence that contradicts your fantasy.

    What I supplied was information from the New Zealand Breast Cancer Foundation that compares mammography with thermography. If you read through, you will find the references to the research that demonstrated that thermography does not work and that mammography does.

    And all you can provide are opinion pieces.

    You really need to learn how science works.

    Like

  69. Stuartg your google relates to nothing more recent than 2010.

    from
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480754
    I calculate annual breast screening radiation dose of 40 to 49-year-old women increases breast cancer deaths by 3 or 4%. Remember those diagnoses are going to appear a success for mammography when really it has caused them. They really should be subtracted from its success story.

    Like

  70. Stuartg: “I was aware that you didn’t have any evidence to support your fantasy about thermography, because it was proven useless decades ago”

    Things change. A comparison to your approach would be to check the 2010 road rules when coming back to NZ. Then when turning right and ploughing into someone turning left I can see you producing the old Road Code in court. But I don’t think you would win.

    Like

  71. soundhill,

    If you think the evidence that thermography is useless has been superceded, then it’s up to you to provide the evidence.

    Until then, we can safely ignore your fantasy.

    Like

  72. Stuartg I’ll quote this which is about a year old and things will have developed since then. I gave some principles to follow, and more on the traps are here.

    (This is nothing to do with Mercola. About8 years ago he was very concerned with people getting good sleep in the dark to get their melatonin cycles going (not to ingest melatonin) and to optimise their vitamin D levels. He said even focussing on monthly breast self examination diagnosis not to be very psychologically healthy, and also to produce unnecessary biopsies when prevention is better, I think. And he said that was just his opinion and asked for people to leave their experiences.)

    After this first quote please read the next ref which come also about 10 years old and talking of the advances in technology by then.

    “The use of IRT to detect breast cancer has been one of the
    most extensively studied, and probably the most severely
    criticized, areas since this technology was introduced into
    medical use. Tumors typically enhance the local blood
    circulation and they have an increased metabolic rate which
    elevates local temperature [30]. Unfortunately, because of
    unsuccessful studies in this research area, IRT lost its credibility
    for a long time [28]. The poor reputation can be partially blamed
    not only on the use of the old technology with its limited
    thermal sensitivity (± 2 °C) but also that the IRT imaging was
    performed by inexperienced individuals [28, 31]. However, themore recent studies have reported that IRT has some
    complimentary value in detecting breast cancer when used
    together with mammography [32, 33]. While used alone, IRT
    had a sensitivity of 83 % (mammography alone 66 %) but when
    both techniques were combined then sensitivity was increased
    to 95 %. Furthermore, Rassiwala et al. reported that IRT showed
    97.6 % sensitivity, 99.17 % specificity, 83.67 % positive predictive
    value and 99.89 % negative predictive value in screening of
    breast cancer [34]. Moreover, Tepper et al. reported that IRT
    could be used for monitoring tumor state and aggressiveness
    either in a single image or with continuous assessment of
    multiple images [35]. In contrast to the other breast cancer
    imaging modalities, such as mammography, MRI, CT and
    ultrasound (US), IRT is cost effective and an easily portable
    imaging modality which could be especially suitable for breast
    cancer screening in the developing countries.
    Diabetes is another application”

    https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjlkYCh3rbPAhUL04MKHfolD-AQFghXMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fepublications.uef.fi%2Fpub%2Furn_isbn_978-952-61-1880-2%2Furn_isbn_978-952-61-1880-2.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEjnAj_ksLPpp6t6D_QnZuOU47UIw&sig2=hz0GLxU3Zh6E1lJEvWBieg

    http://www.netaworld.org/sites/default/files/public/neta-journals/NWSU06-SnellFeature.pdf

    Like

  73. soundhill,

    So, no evidence to support your statement that thermography is useful.

    We can safely ignore it then.

    Like

  74. soundhill,

    As I said, you’ve still prvided no evidence to support your statement that thermography is effective.

    This PDF shows that thermography is useless, complete with references to the original research:
    http://nzbcf.org.nz/Portals/0/Documents/mammography_and_breast_thermography_april2010.pdf

    Like

  75. soundhill,

    If you think that thermography is effective in detecting breast cancer, then you have to overturn decades of research that shows it isn’t.

    Nobody else has done it, but maybe your research, including millions of women worldwide, including the comparison against equivalent numbers undergoing standard of investigation (mammography), and the millions of biopsies required, will also show that thermography is ineffective.

    I look forward to seeing your peer reviewed paper, but don’t expect me to hold my breath.

    Don’t expect Mercola to hold his breath, either…

    Like

  76. Stuartg the thermographic cameras have become much more sensitive, and able to record much smaller variations in temperature, techniques of controlling spurious temperature variations have been introduced, and software has been written to assess the images.

    Here is another link to what I posted last time, giving the full article. Use the pdf for correct characters.
    In the discussion section it is showing itself getting way ahead of what others are doing which were not bad anyway.
    These researchers worked with 25 malignant and 25 normal and are moving on to bigger samples.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301897490_An_integrated_index_for_breast_cancer_identification_using_histogram_of_oriented_gradient_and_kernel_locality_preserving_projection_features_extracted_from_thermograms

    Like

  77. soundhill,

    But still you give no evidence that thermography is effective…

    Remember, if you make the statement, you are expected to be able to back up that statement. So far all you’ve managed are opinion pieces from people wanting to sell the service. Where’s the evidence?

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s