Fluoride, coffee and activist confusion

Havana Coffee Works in Tory Street, Wellington. Great coffee and chance to see roasting in action. On the site of what was the old Wellington Milk Department in the 1950s.

I have been in Wellington for the Parliamentary select committee hearings on fluoridation. Well, that was the excuse – I was really there to catch up with my family (always a joy and am amazed at how tall my grandson has become) and to enjoy the great food in Wellington cafes.This time I

This time I also set out to acquire some freshly-roasted coffee beans from one if the many roasters in Wellington.

The Havana roaster turned out to be a surprise. Not only are their coffee beans excellent ( I am looking forward to getting home and drinking coffee made with them) – they are based in Tory Street as the site of what used to be the old Milk Department. Some of you may still remember the days when milk was delivered to your house in the middle of the night by a milkman. My Dad was one of those milkmen, and my siblings and I all spent time helping him deliver milk in the dead of night. So that building brought back memories. Even got to walk along Channing street on the way back to my hotel. You wouldn’t know it now but that street was very disreputable in the 50s because of the opium dens in the old houses.

Select Committee Hearings

These were interesting. Submissions were called for on  Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill currently before parliament. This legislation is not about fluoridation itself. It is about how decisions should be made – about the process, not the science. In effect, it proposes transferring decisions from local councils to District Health Boards.

Pressure for the law change came from local councils who were sick to death of the hounding from activists and being forced into making decisions – not about whether to fluoridate or not – but about the science. Activist submitters continued to deluge them with passionately-worded submissions full of scientific claims – councillors with no scientific skills were being forced into making decisions about the science – were the activists correct in their claims that fluoridation causes all the ills known to mankind or should they accept the science presented by the experts. After all, activist submissions could look very sciencey – they were often full of citations to the scientific literature!

True to form the anti-fluoride activists deluged the select committee with submissions which were irrelevant to the bill – very few of them actually suggested changes or showed any evidence they had read the bill. No, they did their usual trick of preaching about the “science” – their claims of harmful effects from fluoridation and that it does nothing for oral health anyway.

It is amazing to hear people make outrageous claims about the scientific literature – claims which make clear they have never bothered to read the source they are citing. I guess they think they can get away with such porkies and misrepresentations because they are talking to politicians. However, my impression was this failed at these hearings – unless submitters raised suggestions about the process they were simply politely thanked and sent away.

So I found it frustrating to hear such lies being peddled about the science (and discussion by the public was not allowed) but confident in the fact the select committee was just humouring these people. Responses from committee members were always about process – not the scientific claims.

My submission

There were only a few submissions which dealt properly with the wording of the bill – the vast majority were just empty anti-fluoride rhetoric. I made a submission as an individual scientist but also as part of the Making Sense of Fluoride (MSoF) team. It was great to catch up with MSoF people who I tend to talk with on-line every day but have not till now met in person.

This was my oral submission:


As Monty Python used to say: “And now for something completely different.”

I support this bill as far as it goes but don’t think it will solve the basic problems without changing the way the science is considered. I want to suggest a change.

The current submissions show the problem. This committee has been inundated with large numbers of written and oral submissions. Many of these are duplicates or form letters. Most are opposed to community water fluoridation and usually make scientific claims – such as fluoride is a neurotoxin, that it causes a high prevalence of dental fluorosis or uses contaminated chemicals.

Submissions often cite scientific articles – some have even attached copies of these articles. This sort of thing can impress the layperson – perhaps some of the members of this committee are impressed? After all, it is easy to fool the ordinary person with scientific claims, citations, documents and publications. Advertisers do it all the time.

But this committee is simply not considering the science. Political committees – parliamentary, local body or District Health Board should not make scientific decisions. They do not have the skills for this. Yet that is what most of these submissions are asking of this committee. It’s what was being asked of local councils and it will be what is asked of DHBs.

Consideration of the science behind community water fluoridation requires people with scientific and health skills. Such people need to check evidence provided, check citations when they are presented, check what the scientific literature actually says (which could be very different to what submitters claim). Proper scientific consideration requires that the claims and cited scientific literature need to be considered intelligently and critically. The wider literature needs to be consulted. Cited claims need following up.

I have attached a couple of documents that do this – these are responses to documents used by several submitter arguing against community water fluoridation.

The current wording this bill requires DHBs to consider the scientific evidence. That just invites opponents of community water fluoridation to inundate DHBs with the sort of submission this committee has received – and local councils have been inundated with. DHBs are no better equipped to deal with this than this committee or local councils.

I suggest a change requiring DHBs to take advice on the scientific evidence from central bodies – the Ministry of Health and the Public Health Advisory Committee. This would transfer responsibility for scientific considerations to central bodies better equipped to do that evaluation.

The Public Health Advisory Committee has a legislated role to consider questions like this and advise the Minister. It is also able to consult interested organisations, experts like the Royal Society and the Prime Minister’s Chief Scientific Advisor who performed the most recent fluoridation review. It can also consult appropriate individuals.

This would not remove the right of lay persons to make submissions about the science – it simply redirects those submissions to a more appropriate body.

I think a change like this should be welcomed by everybody. It removes from DHBs the impossible job of making decisions about the science they are not equipped to make. It provides a proper venue for the science to be considered intelligently and critically. It is a credible and authoritative body for scientific organisations, health organisations, activist groups and the ordinary person who has concerns on this issue – whether for or against community water fluoridation.

After all – if someone has a genuine concern or has evidence they think will stand up to scientific scrutiny why should they want to waste time submitting it to a committee of politicians? Wouldn’t they be far happier knowing they are appealing to people who have the skills to evaluate their concerns properly?

Similar articles

Advertisements

170 responses to “Fluoride, coffee and activist confusion

  1. Steven Slott

    Now, just be clear……..you are suggesting that antifluoridationists should read the issue about which they are commenting, and the literature they provide to support their position? Don’t you think that’s being bit unreasonsble, Ken? I interact with a lot of these prople, and I haven’t yet come across any who are capable of meeting such an extrordinary expectation. Perhaps that idea should be modified to suggest that antifluoridationists should either read the issue and the scientific literature they provide……..or copy/paste blurbs from “fluoridealert”, whichever is commensurate with their level intelligence. This way 99% of these activists would not be excluded from the discussion, as they would be under your unmodified suggestion.

    Outstanding article, Ken!

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Ken wrote: “The current wording this bill requires DHBs to consider the scientific evidence.”

    Meaning they are supposed to accept that the scientific evidence says fluoridation helps teeth.

    As far as negative effects are concerned it only tells them to consider the financial cost which would be of installing and operating fluoridation.

    Like

  3. Brian, I think you have a comprehension problem. When a group is asked to consider the scientific evidence it just means what it says – not what you inject for political purposes.

    As you say, the scientific evidence does show CWF helps teeth. The bill certainly doesn’t exclude consideration of any scientific evidence regarding harm (nothing yet shows definite harm).

    As for costs – that was the subject of some submissions and it is likely they will result in changes.

    After all, isn’t that the purpose of select committee considerations?

    If you had valid points to make on the bill why did you not make a submission?

    Like

  4. “In deciding whether to make a direction, DHBs will be required to consider scientific evidence and whether the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water outweigh the financial costs, taking into account local oral health status, population numbers, and financial cost and savings.”
    “required to consider scientific evidence”
    In other words they may not make a decision without considering the scientific evidence. their decision cannot be just based on a referendum for example.

    Nothing about “iatrogenic” effects.

    I did a submission. Don’t see them published yet.

    I was heard on Thursday by Sarah Dowie and Paul Foster Bell.

    I keep learning how basic it is necessary to spell things out whcih is hard in 5 mins. I did my usual rugby soccer spiel. Paul replied correlation is not causation. At least he is seeing I have a strong correlation. So caution is advised awaiting causes.

    Paul claimed my whole presentation was nullified since Richie McCaw came from South Canterbury which is fluoridated.he said. Of course Kurow/ Hakataramea where Richie grew up is not fluoridated. Paul pointed out Richie attended Otago Boys’ High – fluoridated. But in his final year there he didn’t even get into the national youth team. He lost to boys like Angus McDonald from unfluoridated Whangarei. Richie didn’t start to excel in rugby till he moved from OBHS to Lincoln University – unfluoridated in Canterbury..

    Can’t always trust the “science establishment.”

    http://retractionwatch.com/2017/03/24/three-tough-years-macchiarini-whistleblower-cleared-previous-charges/

    Why did current All Black captain Kieran Read let go of his sports scholarship at prestigious St Kentigerns in fluoridated Auckland and return to his high school near his home area of unfluoridated Drury?

    Like

  5. Brian – what name did you use? I don’t see anything under the name Sandle.

    So you ranted about Rugby, did you? Must have given them a good laugh.

    You are wrong about decision making and referenda. We were told public consultation is implicit. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it is not made explicit in the final version.

    Perhaps you should have made a submission on consultation instead of wasting your time on Rugby. 🙂

    It would have been more relevant.

    Like

  6. “I don’t see anything under the name Sandle.”
    Where did you look, I don’t see any submissions?

    Since my Thursday presentation may not be published (sometimes exrra bits are) here it is:

    Brian R SANDLE
    Presentation to the Health Services Select sub committee on 23 March 2014 (corrected 2017) on the
    Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.

    This Bill does not encourage DHBs to consider costs of fluoridation other than the financial costs of installing and operating the equipment.
    If there be a cost to development of Intellectual Quotient in any part of its range or genetic variant I suggest that that could lessen New Zealand’s earning power or increase health costs.

    If there be a cost to rugby performance of top players, likewise.

    The Royal Society report based its IQ safety assertion on the Dunedin Study. Dunedin has more iodine in its water than Christchurch and Christchurch has had much more goitre than Dunedin. A study by Lin FF and others found that levels of water fluoride comparable to those used in fluoridation do have negative effect on IQ when children have low iodine intake. DHBs should be instructed to consider that.

    And I maintain that the Dunedin Study had a fault in that an unspecified portion of its non-fluoridated control group of 99 drank water from wells in Mosgiel which are high on nitrate. The level can be over 5 mg/litre which is 50 to 500 times that of much of Dunedin. Nitrate is known to affect the thyroid and iodine metabolism, and could have lost any advantage of the unfluoridated control group.

    Going to rugby: No All Black captains have been born in Auckland, our largest city, since fluoridation started there in 1966.

    Petone has always been an unfluoridated area of the Wellington region. Wellington’s top rugby players compete for the Jubilee Cup since 1929. Up until 1966 Petone won 23% of years. Then the rest of Wellington region but not Petone was fluoridated. Even though more teams came on the scene, from then on non-fluoridated Petone nearly doubled wins to 43%. of years. That is until Petone College closed and children had to cross the Hutt River and go to school in the fluoridated area. Petone club then dropped out of the Jubilee Cup to a lower grade.

    Timaru was fluoridated from 1973 to 1985, South Canterbury produced no more All Blacks after 1972 having produced 22 before that. It also dropped out of Division 1 rugby.

    More of the Hawke’s Bay Magpies are selected from the non-fluoridated areas of Hawkes Bay which however has similar size fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations

    Non-fluoridated Canterbury has done very well in rugby.

    Going to soccer: Starting about 8 years after fluoridation started in Birmingham in 1970, Birmingham have had no more wins in soccer with unfluoridated Manchester in a contest which has been going on for a long time.

    This Bill should encourage DHBs to be awake to other possible costs of fluoridation for their region than just the financial costs of installing and operating the equipment. What other deficits may be found for various abilities and impacted points in lives?

    I don’t think we are ready to lay down legislation which presumes fluoridation to be free of non-”financial” costs. When Broadbent and the Dunedin Study authors were challenged in a letter in the American Journal of Public Health they added that dental fluorosis is not found to be associated with IQ deficit. But they have not replied to me saying whether they are using the common meaning of the term “dental fluorosis” which may include other white opacities on teeth rather than just the ones caused by fluoride. More diffuse but symmetrical-in-the-mouth opacities are caused by fluoride. Were Broadbent’s assessors noting that difference in those years? Illnesses, medicines and other trauma can cause opacities, too. The opacities are caused by damage by fluoride or other trauma to the cells which make the tooth enamel. Is it so sure it won’t damage other cells: maybe especially those in people with common COMT gene variants?

    I note that our current All Black captain Kieran Read, who grew up in the non-fluoridated South of Auckland region of older Drury, got a sports scholarship to top school St Kentigerns in fluoridated Auckland but decided to return back to his home area. Could fluoridation have been one possibly unconscious factor there, that he didn’t feel he was doing so well in the fluoridated area?

    Thank you for listening to our feelings and facts about fluoridation.

    Like

  7. Yes, Brian, as I thought.

    They must have had a giggle at this one.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Ken the Dunedin Study has been working with COMT. Son’t you remember it on the TV series you drew our attention to?

    And my presentation related to what I had in my original submission.

    If I am hearing any giggles they are either nervous ones, or the raucous laughter which a protagonist without an answer uses as a last resort to try to swing opinion.

    Like

  9. soundhill,

    “Starting about 8 years after fluoridation started in Birmingham in 1970, Birmingham have had no more wins in soccer with unfluoridated Manchester in a contest which has been going on for a long time.”

    Birmingham City was relegated in 1979, and currently plays in a different league from both Manchester United and Manchester City.

    So your “no more wins” does not exactly tell the whole story.

    Perhaps you could let us know the total wins, losses and draws since 1979, rather than just “no more wins”?

    Btw, did you realise the water supply for Manchester contains naturally occurring fluoride? It’s just not added.

    Like

  10. Stuartg I only have the figures up to 2011.
    http://www.11v11.com/teams/manchester-united/tab/opposingTeams/opposition/Birmingham%20City/

    “Birmingham City was relegated in 1979, and currently plays in a different league from both Manchester United and Manchester City.”

    Same as South Canterbury dropped out of Division 1.

    Birmingham have still been attaining draws against Manchester.

    “Btw, did you realise the water supply for Manchester contains naturally occurring fluoride? It’s just not added”

    All water supplies contain fluoride, just not much in some.

    Manchester has poor teeth in children but that may not relate to fluoride. How much do you think they are getting?

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/13/is-fluoride-good-for-cities-newcastle-hull

    Like

  11. Please folks, don’t feed the retarded troll.

    Like

  12. Richard Christie are you trying to give people an excuse for not replying?
    I think your comment is a forbidden ad hominem, by the way.

    Like

  13. Soundhill, in reviewing this thread, I’m seeing accusations of IQ loss, thyroid damage, soccer performance??, iatrogenic effects — all attributable to Community Water Fluoridation? Is that correct?

    I personally have counted over 60 ailments attributed to CWF. Among the most creative were spontaneous abortions, dwarfism, and dying chinchilla herds. Soccer performance is a new one. Congratulations. (I thought you guys called it football.)

    Ok. After over 70 years and many hundreds of millions of people enjoying the benefits of optimally fluoridated water, please cite one documented example of any physical harm to any person because they drank water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it, even for as much as a lifetime.

    Like

  14. David,

    You won’t get an answer to your question.

    Instead, it’ll be amusing to count the number of items in the Gish Gallop that’ll be used to avoid answering the question.

    Like

  15. “Birmingham (City) have still been attaining draws against Manchester (United).”

    And wins against Manchester City. Which, not coincidentally, has the same water supply as Manchester United.

    And wins against Blackburn, Preston and Wigan, all of whom, not coincidentally, share the same water supply as Manchester. And all of whom actually play in the same league as Birmingham City.

    Aston Villa, who, not coincidentally, shares the same water supply as Birmingham City, has continued having wins, draws and losses against Manchester United since fluoridation. And against Manchester City. And against Blackburn, Preston and Wigan.

    Methinks soundhill needs to consider factors other than fluoridation to explain the results between Manchester United and Birmingham City.

    Perhaps even – coincidence?

    Like

  16. Stuartg: “Aston Villa, who, not coincidentally, shares the same water supply as Birmingham City, has continued having wins, draws and losses against Manchester United since fluoridation.”

    Aston VIlla had 14 wins in 55 games in 33 years against MU 1945 – 1977 that is 25%
    10 in 83 games since then that is 12%.

    Yes still some wins – about half the rate.

    Like

  17. David Fierstien: “I personally have counted over 60 ailments attributed to CWF. Among the most creative were spontaneous abortions, dwarfism, and dying chinchilla herds. Soccer performance is a new one.”

    Take them all on their merits. Some of them could be interacting factors like fluoride plus deficient iodine. But I haven’t looked into those.

    How about providing the details? Or are you going to just try to create a perception?

    “Soccer performance is a new one. Congratulations. (I thought you guys called it football.)”

    It is called football in UK. Sometimes in NZ it is called association football as opposed to rugby football where the players hold the ball unlike soccer which association football is called in NZ.

    Like

  18. David,

    I thing that you can eliminate soccer performance from your list of effects of CWF.

    That is, unless soundhill can provide evidence that his observation is more than just coincidence.

    His reference, which was one of the ones I also used, shows that the observed pattern of no wins only occurred between Birmingham City and Manchester United. It didn’t occur between any other teams drinking the same water supplies. Heck, it didn’t even happen with the other Birmingham City teams – the Under 21s, Ladies, Reserves.

    If his observation was real, rather than purely coincidental, we would expect to see the same thing occurring between other teams who drank the same water supplies. We don’t see that same pattern elsewhere, so the only real conclusion is that the observation occurred by chance; it’s a coincidence.

    I don’t think that soundhill realises that coincidences really happen. He has a conspiracist fantasy world which does not allow for random chance, so all coincidences become part of his conspiracist fantasies.

    I find it interesting that he hasn’t realised that we can apply the same sort of logical reasoning to everything else he mentioned in his submission – and all of his observations can then be shown to be coincidence.

    Like

  19. soundhill,

    No answer to David’s question?

    I take it then, that from amongst the millions of people​ benefitting for decades from CWF, you are unable to find a documented example of someone suffering physical harm from CWF.

    Like

  20. Stuartg Reduced wins still carries statistical weight..

    Like

  21. David Fierstien

    Stuartg, regarding your comment, “I thing that you can eliminate soccer performance from your list of effects of CWF.

    “That is, unless soundhill can provide evidence that his observation is more than just coincidence.”

    No . . soccer performance gets added to the list. After all, it is a list of ailments “attributed” to CWF. Soundhill is attributing poor soccer performance to CWF, so it goes on the list right along with Dwarfism, Dying Chinchilla herds, and Spontaneous Abortion, and lower I.Q.s.

    Soundhill, I asked you for one documented case of any human being who was ever harmed because they drank optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime.

    Let me give you and example of how this works: Yul Brynner died because he was exposed to tobacco. Yul Brynner would be an example of a well documented case of someone who was harmed by a particular substance. I’m not asking about his performance on a soccer field.

    So . . I’m still waiting for you to provide only one example, of the hundreds of millions of people who have enjoyed the benefits of optimally fluoridated water . . only one documented example of any person who was harmed because they drank it . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Got anything?

    Like

  22. I am not attributing impaired football performance to fluoridation. I see a strong correlation. That is not causation but caution is needed. Too strong a correlation for coincidence in my opinion. This is not a situation where an experiment can easily be done.

    Like

  23. Brian, I am currently writing an article on the use if statistics regarding fluoridation. I would like to use one or more of you claims and need a link or reference where you do the work, show a correlation, etc.

    For football or Rugby.

    Can you provide a citation? After all claiming a “strong corellaltion” implies a statistical analysis – this is what I want to refer to.

    Like

  24. soundhill,

    “Stuartg Reduced wins still carries statistical weight..”(sic)

    So let’s see your statistical analysis that formally demonstrates the import of your observations.

    Like

  25. soundhill,

    A single observation, out of many hundreds (thousands?) possible from the UK football results, may be “a strong correlation” in your fantasy world.

    To the rest of the world it’s explainable by chance.

    It’s up to you to prove its not coincidence.

    Like

  26. Soundhill, just to recap and to be clear, you are unable to cite even one documented example of any person who has been harmed by drinking water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it . . . is that correct?

    If so, you and your paranoid delusion/conspiracy theory are a complete joke.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Ken I hadn’t thought of the connection between reduced rugby and soccer performance and water fluoridation as a correlation until government member Paul Foster Bell last Thursday acknowledged my presentation to the select committee using the expression “correlation isn’t causation.” I haven’t calculated a correlation. I don’t yet see how to do that.

    Rugby is a winter sport. Players get hot and drink lots and therefore will get more fluoride than many people if they are drinking fluoridated water or bottled drinks made using fluoridated water. I suspect serious players training many days/hours per week will get more fluoride and even more in Auckland than Dunedin. I get notions and check them so how does Otago do per population in rugby compared to Auckland?

    Like

  28. But Biran – you said these things were highly calculated!

    Does this mean you haven’t attempted any regression?

    At this stage all I want to do a cite you speculation as an example of how people explore data for correlation with extent of fluoridation in the way that Malin & Till (2015) and Huber et al (2015) did.

    Do you not have anything I can refer to?

    Like

  29. Ken,

    Of course he hasn’t anything you can refer to.

    He tells us he’s never had formal teaching in science, that he’s entirely self taught. So he’s had no-one to point out where and why he’s gone wrong.

    Because he doesn’t understand the scientific method, he can’t understand why his fantasies aren’t reflected in the real world. He can’t distinguish reality from his beliefs.

    You and I, or any other scientist, can take his beliefs and formulate a hypothesis to test them in a few minutes. Even without leaving the net, in only a few hours we could gather sufficient data that the required statistical analysis could be done and the hypothesis would be either refuted or, with a very tiny possibility, show correlation.

    It says a lot about his self-taught “science” that he has spent many years with these fantasy-based beliefs and hasn’t been able to progress any further with them.

    Like

  30. David Fierstien do you regard impairment as harm?

    Like

  31. Soundhill, I would regard any physical ailment that negatively affects quality of life as “harm.”

    So again, for, is it the 3rd or 4th time, can you cite any specific, documented example of any human being who has been physically harmed because they drank optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime?

    Like

  32. I just wish you guys would just ignore the troll.

    His Simpleton thrives on your attention, He’s infested this blog for over two years now. Enough is enough.

    Like

  33. Ideally, any comment of his should attract an automatic flag – a warning that informs readers that he is the house troll and to engage with him at one’s own peril or without any expectation of rational or honest debate.

    Like

  34. David Fierstien wrote: “Soundhill, I would regard any physical ailment that negatively affects quality of life as “harm.””

    So reduced rugby ability or IQ should not be thought of as harm?

    Like

  35. David said: “just to recap and to be clear, you are unable to cite even one documented example of any person who has been harmed by drinking water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it . . . is that correct?”

    Well, soundhill is going to do a Humphrey Appleby and play for time. He’s never going to acknowledge with a “yes” or “no”.

    He plays for time by first asking for the definition of a word that is well known to primary school children. Then he tries to attribute his own confused thinking about a straightforward definition to someone else. All to avoid answering a simple question.

    He has no citation because no-one, among the millions of people drinking CWF for multiple decades, has been documented as being harmed by drinking CWF. That’s the result the real world has provided and he’ll never acknowledge that.

    soundhill is full of fantasy based conspiracist beliefs that have no basis in reality. He’ll ignore any evidence that contradict his beliefs, to the extent that he won’t recognise when one of his beliefs contradicts another. He’s here to spread FUD about CWF.

    Like

  36. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, I did a quick count. I’ve asked you 5 times now (twice in one comment) to provide one documented example of any human being who has ever been harmed in any way because they drank optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime.

    I’ll count this as number 6.

    Since you’re an expert on this subject, your inability to provide even one case example of harm to any human being because they drank this stuff tells me that Stuartg might be correct:

    “He has no citation because no-one, among the millions of people drinking CWF for multiple decades, has been documented as being harmed by drinking CWF. That’s the result the real world has provided and he’ll never acknowledge that.”

    Is that right? No harm comes to anybody from drinking water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it? Unless, of course, you can show me an example where this has actually happened to someone (that was #7).

    Like

  37. Stuartg: “He plays for time by first asking for the definition of a word that is well known to primary school children.”

    Children can be very trusting.

    Former prime minister Robert Muldoon thought that milk being cheaper than Coca Cola ought to be sufficient in getting them to make the healthy choice, away from harm.

    Children don’t always know harm. Do “R” films or video games “harm” them?

    Primary school children tend to understand things by concrete example or encounter. It is later when they can see the form of a situation. Then they become better able to separate imagination and reality. But some people unfortunately do not progress and can be prayed upon easily by advertisers or evil entities. Group feelings can be played upon. It is easy to build religious hatred or racial.

    Harm can have a number of meanings and David Fierstien thinks it to be about “physical” harm.

    Like

  38. …yet again avoiding giving an answer by attempting to change the subject.

    That’s a limited range of responses, all pretty obvious in their intent.

    Like

  39. …and yet again twisting someone else’s meaning.

    Go back and read what David said, soundhill. His meaning is perfectly clear and does not need to be warped by you in order to suit your agenda.

    Like

  40. Harm can be achieved by science deniers attempting to foist their fantasies onto the real world, for instance by denying the well- documented dental and financial benefits of CWF on a community.

    Like

  41. David Fierstien

    Soundhill: “Harm can have a number of meanings and David Fierstien thinks it to be about “physical” harm.”

    Ok . . for the 8th time now, give me a documented example of “any” harm to “any” human being in “any” part of the world because they drank water with 0.7 – 1.0 parts per million of fluoride in it.

    Like

  42. David Fierstien I am noticing harm to populations.

    When lead in paint and petrol was being found to influence child health it would have been hard to tie individual IQs to the pollutant. But populations showed the difference.

    Show me a documented case of one child’s IQ being lowered by lead.

    I have done the follwing quickly and may have made a mistake.

    In the first column I have the tally of the points won by the Auckland, Canterbury and Otago-based super 12 rugby teams, less the points again st them.

    In the second column is the population of the province.

    The third column gives won – lost point per 10,000 population.

    Unfluoridated Canterbury is far ahead.

    Fluoridated, but cool climate Otago is in the middle and hot fluoridated Auckland is very behind.

    696 1377000 5.0544662309 Auckland (Blues)
    2141 600100 35.6773871021 Canterbury (Crusaders)
    518 219200 23.6313868613 (Highlanders)

    In the hot climate it is likely players will drink more therefore intake more fluoride and be more harmed.

    Like

  43. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, you ask, “Show me a documented case of one child’s IQ being lowered by lead.”

    Sure. No problem.

    Flint, Michigan:
    The students of Eisenhower Elementary School were tested for lead in January, 2013, after elevated levels were found in the city’s drinking water.

    The lawyers at Levy Konigsberg have recovered more than one hundred million dollars on behalf of lead poisoned children for their lowered earning capacities as adults due to diminished intelligence quotient and other physical ailments.

    A city test revealed high lead content in the water in one specifically documented (per your request) Flint resident’s home. . . The water at Lee Anne Walters’ home “turned up with a lead content of 104 parts per billion. Fifteen parts per billion is the [Environmental Protection Agency]’s limit for lead in drinking water.”

    In April, Walters says her child was diagnosed with lead poisoning.

    The child of Lee Anne Walters of Flint, Michigan, in 2013, would be one specific documented example of a human being whose intelligence quotient was diminished because of lead poisoning. The many clients of Levy Konigsberg would be others. We can contact that law firm and get you more names if you would like. . . Even without contacting Levy Konigsberg, your question has been answered.

    Now . . for the 9th time, please cite one specific documented example of any harm that has come to any human being because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    I’ll even give you broader latitude. Can you show me any successful lawsuits for health reasons because someone drank optimally fluoridated water and was harmed?

    Like

  44. David Fierstien

    “Show me a documented case of one child’s IQ being lowered by lead.”

    You know, this really isn’t that hard. It took me under 5 minutes to find another one:

    “At age 2, Salissa Stallworth was already showing the effects of lead poisoning. In a lab study conducted at the University of Cincinnati college of medicine in 1995, the toddler was unable to respond to basic instructions that other girls her age were able to follow.

    Experts say that Salissa was not born with developmental problems, nor were her problems genetic or the product of disease. Instead, she was poisoned right in her own home by lead. Eight years later, doctors say she is still suffering the effects of lead poisoning.” http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=125121&page=1

    Salissa Stallworth, in 1995 at the University of Cincinatti, diagnosed with lead poisoning, would be another specific documented example of a “child’s IQ being lowered by lead.”

    Why is it so difficult for you to give me even one documented example of any person who has ever been harmed because they drank optimally fluoridated water and harmed?

    Like

  45. soundhill,

    “Show me a documented case of one child’s IQ being lowered by lead.”

    Well, here’s one for population.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8162884

    That’s what science tells us. It also tells us that, in spite of millions of people having the benefits of CWF for decades, even a lifetime, no reduction in IQ attributable to CWF has ever been recorded.

    Now, where’s your documented evidence that even one person, among those millions, has been harmed by drinking CWF?

    Like

  46. “I have done the follwing quickly and may have made a mistake.”(sic)

    Can we count the missteaks? Starting with your fantasy beliefs about CWF causing harm? Maybe going on to your ideas about significant figures and calculation of uncertainty?

    You really should undertake some lessons in the scientific method. Perhaps you could start with year 9 science at your local high school?

    Like

  47. “Well, here’s one for population.”

    Yes for population, but you are asking me for proof for one individual, over and over.

    Like

  48. David Fierstien, because lead is know by population studies to damage IQ your cases are presuming that those individual children were IQ-damaged by lead. Your cited cases are not proof. They are just accepted as very likely.

    Because my rugby – soccer studies show team impairment I presume that individuals are being hurt, in the same way as your lead examples.

    Like

  49. “Maybe going on to your ideas about significant figures and calculation of uncertainty?”

    Yes I know I didn’t tell Openoffice Calc to work to the lesser number of significant figures, sorry.

    Like

  50. Soundhill, you are not for real. You say, “Your cited cases are not proof. They are just accepted as very likely.”

    Wrong! Read this again. “Experts say that Salissa was not born with developmental problems, nor were her problems genetic or the product of disease. Instead, she was poisoned right in her own home by lead. Eight years later, doctors say she is still suffering the effects of lead poisoning.”

    From both cases I cited, I am seeing words and phrases like, “Experts,” “doctors say,” “she WAS poisoned,” and, “her child WAS diagnosed with lead poisoning.”

    These diagnoses are not “just accepted as very likely.” These are absolutes.

    Do you seriously believe that the Law Office of Levy Konigsberg could have been able to collect more than $100 million is there was a Shadow Of A Doubt? Take your “accepted as very likely” argument into court against Levy Konigsberg and let me know how it works out, because you can bet the defendants in this case posed that same argument with an EPIC failure costing more than $100 million.

    Your argument is an EPIC failure.

    Again, you have asked me to provide only one documented example of IQ loss due to lead poisoning (as if that wasn’t possible). . I have provided two.

    I will ask you AGAIN . . . FOR THE 10th TIME NOW, . . . Please provide one documented example, of the hundreds of millions of people who enjoy the health benefits of CWF, who has ever been harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Like

  51. To prove that a child loses IQ by lead poisoning a scientist would administer lead and do an IQ test before and after.

    However epidemiology on populations can point to the effect of lead. So it isn’t necessary to prove by a scientific experiment that an individual was affected. Knowing the exposure is sufficient.

    Where we are at with fluoride is doing the epidemiology.

    Like

  52. soundhill,

    “To prove that a child loses IQ by lead poisoning a scientist would administer lead and do an IQ test before and after.”

    Wrong. Very wrong. But somehow unsurprising from a person who admits he has never been taught about how science and the scientific method works.

    David provided the evidence of individuals that science has shown had IQs lowered by exposure to lead, just as you asked him to. I provided evidence of populations being similarly harmed.

    In spite of being asked multiple times, you have not provided similar documented evidence of harm from optimally fluoridated drinking water.

    The only valid reason for you being unable to provide such documented evidence is that, although millions of people have been drinking CWF over multiple decades, and scientists have been monitoring for adverse effects for the entire of that time, there is absolutely no evidence of harm being produced by CWF.

    If you don’t answer the simple question you’ve been asked, everyone else is going to accept the default position that you are unable to provide documented evidence that even one person has been harmed by drinking CWF.

    Just think: millions of people, multiple decades, even entire lifetimes, and absolutely no evidence that even a single person has been harmed by drinking CWF!

    Like

  53. soundhill,

    “Because my rugby – soccer studies show team impairment…”

    No, they don’t. You haven’t provided the statistics to even demonstrate correlation. Until you do, to paraphrase your own words, all you have is coincidence.

    “I am not attributing impaired football performance to fluoridation.”

    Then why do you keep bringing up the topic without even demonstrating correlation?

    All you’re doing is spreading FUD about CWF with absolutely no evidence to support your fantasy-based conspiracist faith/belief.

    Like

  54. soundhill,

    “However epidemiology on populations can point to the effect of lead.”

    …And the same epidemiology can also point to the effect of optimally fluoridated drinking water.

    Millions of people have been drinking CWF for multiple decades, for entire lifetimes. They have been monitored by epidemiologists for the entire of that time.

    The only effect found from optimally fluoridated drinking water has been improved dental health. No harm of any sort has ever been demonstrated. That’s decades of epidemiology. That’s generations of epidemiologists searching for unintended effects of CWF.

    If you have documented evidence that proves generations of epidemiologists to be wrong, simply cite it.

    Like

  55. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, you say, “To prove that a child loses IQ by lead poisoning a scientist would administer lead and do an IQ test before and after.”

    Actually, there is truth to that. That is why, if you look at the brief description of the Salissa Stallworth case, I included this: “Experts say that Salissa was not born with developmental problems, . . ” How do experts know this? One reason is because in the U.S. everybody gets tested for developmental & motor skill issues at birth. One method is the Apgar test. Everybody gets one. Everybody gets a battery of tests. All testing is done “before.”

    So . . when Salissa was born (that would be the “before” – per your request) her motor skills were fine. There was no neurological damage. She was born a completely normal child.

    “After” she was diagnosed as having been poisoned by lead (that would be the “after”) she was “was unable to respond to basic instructions that other girls her age were able to follow.” You did read that, didn’t you? And if you go further and have a look at the link I provided you will also see that “She has ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), she has behavioral problems, she has emotional problems, she has phobias,” All this neurological damage was found “after” (per your request) being diagnosed with lead poisoning.

    So, you have asked for one documented example of IQ loss from lead poisoning. I have provided two.

    For the 11th time now . . Please provide one example of any human being who has ever been harmed, in any way, by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Like

  56. “David provided the evidence of individuals that science has shown had IQs lowered by exposure to lead, just as you asked him to.”

    No he showed that compensation was paid to people who had exposure to lead which epidemiology says is harmful.

    It wasn’t always known that lead is toxic. It used to make wine sweeter, as lead acetate.

    Science progresses.It was noticed that monks who did not drink wine were spared by God from the lead affliction. If Stuartg had been around in those days he would have proclaimed it to be a coincidence and that people continue using the wine.

    Like

  57. David Fierstien give proof it was the only thing changed in her life, not fluoride &c.

    Like

  58. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, you ask, “David Fierstien give proof it was the only thing changed in her life, not fluoride &c.”

    Sure, no problem.

    Since Salissa Stallworth WAS diagnosed with having “lead poisoning” by “doctors” (you know, real people with real medical training who have earned real Degrees). . . since she had elevated levels of lead in her blood. . . And since her symptoms are consistent with lead poisoning . . . and since she was NOT diagnosed with fluoride poisoning . . . And since no person who drinks optimally fluoridated water gets fluoride poisoning (as you, yourself are proving) . . . And since defendants have shelled out over $100 million in compensation to one law firm alone which IS an admission of culpability in the poisoning of plaintiffs with lead . . . And since an admission of guilt is considered Proof (per your request) of guilt. . . . I have proven that lead was the only thing that changed her life, not fluoride &c.

    You have asked for an example of someone whose IQ was lowered with lead. I have provided two examples.

    For the 12th time now, please provide an example of any human being who was harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Like

  59. David,

    Soundhill’s doing everything he can to avoid answering the question.

    He’s doing his best to divert by using irrelevant and unrelated comments and questions.

    By that he hopes that others reading this thread will forget what he has and hasn’t said; he forgets they can just scroll up the page.

    Community Water Fluoridation first occurred in 1945, over 70 years ago. I was interested to find out that it was developed in part because epidemiologists had noticed the harm produced in humans by excess naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water. From day one of CWF epidemiologists have been concerned about the possibility of harm from such low levels of fluoride, even though the evidence showed no harm, so from day one all communities with CWF have been under scrutiny to confirm that no harm was being caused.

    In over seventy years of epidemiological surveillance of populations with CWF, there has been no evidence found for harm produced by optimally fluoridated drinking water.

    That’s the reason why soundhill can’t produce documentary evidence of harm produced by CWF. Seven decades of searching, by people infinitely more qualified for the task than soundhill (he admits to no qualifications for the task, not even science at high school), not a single scrap of evidence of any harm being caused by optimally fluoridated drinking water.

    And yet he can’t acknowledge that. To do so would be anathema. It would mean he was in error with his carefully constructed imaginary world of conspiracist fantasy in which he sees himself as the small man fighting against hidden overlords (insert here whichever fictionary references you favour).

    He’s a brilliant example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. He’s got a minimal amount of knowledge yet perceives himself as the intellectual superior of our expert host. He’s actually got no idea of how little he knows about the scientific method or even science in general. And let’s not even start on his cut and paste knowledge about CWF.

    So, the actual evidence, backed by more than seventy years of continuing epidemiological research, shows us that no-one has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated drinking water. Nothing soundhill has said has altered that conclusion.

    Like

  60. Stuartg, you are waaay too polite.

    Like

  61. Sorry, Richard. It’s a hazard of my job.

    So is having to know the evidence for and against public health measures.

    When someone can’t interpret the real world because of psychiatric illness, I have to be able to empathise with them. But when someone with supposedly normal mentation decides to reject reality and live in a delusional fantasy world I have difficulty. I’ll try to remain polite, but also try to use their delusions to teach others about reality.

    I have had a great dose of reality today – hundreds of people, all with the scientific understanding to acknowledge the benefits and lack of harm of CWF. The belly laugh when the dentist presenter talked about the mentality and actions of anti-fluoridationists was wonderful!

    Like

  62. ““After” she was diagnosed as having been poisoned by lead (that would be the “after”) she was “was unable to respond to basic instructions that other girls her age were able to follow.””

    It is likely but not certain that lead caused it. It could be just a coincidence.

    And the fluoridation-rugby impairment does not have to be a coincidence.

    Like

  63. Me: ” “After” she was diagnosed as having been poisoned by lead (that would be the “after”) she was “was unable to respond to basic instructions that other girls her age were able to follow.””

    Soundhill: “It is likely but not certain that lead caused it. It could be just a coincidence.”

    No, it is Certain that these people who are suffering from neurological impairment were poisoned by lead. It was Proven in a Court of Law. That is a fact. There is no doubt. No one would ever agree to pay out over $100 Million in compensation unless it was an absolute certainty which could not be appealed or disputed and beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    You have asked for an example of someone whose IQ was lowered with lead. I have provided two examples which are beyond doubt and certain, since it has already been proven.

    For the 13th time now, please provide an example of any human being who was harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Like

  64. Soundhill, If I was in your position, and I thought I had a good argument against what has already been proven in a Court of Law, . . . I would contact the Defendants against whom the Law Office of Levy Konigsberg have collected over $100 Million, . . . and I would ask for 10% of recovered damages that have been paid out, if I could recover those damages.

    That would give you a cool $1 Million. If they could get $90 Million back, those guys would pay your 1st Class Airfair to Michigan.

    Why don’t you do that if you think you can show there is no proof that people in Flint suffering from neurological damage were not poisoned by lead? For $1 Million? Why don’t you bring your argument to Michigan?

    Like

  65. David Fierstien courts of law have sentenced to death people who are not guilty.

    It took while before asbestos was accepted as a health hazard.

    I wrote: “And the fluoridation-rugby impairment does not have to be a coincidence,” but rather could have written, that it does not have to be just a string of coincidences my rugby examples of:

    1. No All Black captains have been born in Auckland, our largest city, since fluoridation started there in 1966.

    2. Petone has always been an unfluoridated area of the Wellington region. Wellington’s top rugby players compete for the Jubilee Cup since 1929. Up until 1966 Petone won 23% of years. Then the rest of Wellington region but not Petone was fluoridated. Even though more teams came on the scene, from then on non-fluoridated Petone nearly doubled wins to 43%. of years. That is until Petone College closed and children had to cross the Hutt River and go to school in the fluoridated area. Petone club then dropped out of the Jubilee Cup to a lower grade.

    3. Timaru was fluoridated from 1973 to 1985, South Canterbury produced no more All Blacks after 1972 having produced 22 before that. It also dropped out of Division 1 rugby.

    4. More of the Hawke’s Bay Magpies are selected from the non-fluoridated areas of Hawkes Bay which however has similar size fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations

    5. Non-fluoridated Canterbury has done very well in rugby.

    In the first column I have the tally of the points won by the Auckland, Canterbury and Otago-based super 12 rugby teams, less the points again st them.

    In the second column is the population of the province.

    The third column gives won – lost point per 10,000 population.

    Unfluoridated Canterbury is far ahead.

    Fluoridated, but cool climate Otago is in the middle and hot fluoridated Auckland is very behind.

    696 1377000 5 Auckland (Blues)
    2141 600100 36 Canterbury (Crusaders)
    518 219200 24 (Highlanders)

    (Note I have removed the excess significant figures which comprised the basis of Stuartg’s objection.)

    In the hot climate it is likely players will drink more therefore intake more fluoride and be more harmed.

    6. And my soccer example soccer starting about 8 years after fluoridation started in Birmingham in 1970, Birmingham have had no more wins in soccer with unfluoridated Manchester in a contest which has been going on for a long time.

    Like

  66. David,

    I told you.

    soundhill’s never going to answer because to do so would be to admit that his world viewpoint is pure fantasy.

    He’s been going on for years about rugby, football and CWF, but when challenged will then say he’s not attributing effects to fluoridation. He hasn’t even tested his “findings” to see if they’re corellation or coincidence.

    They’re all easy to test.

    He tells us the effect can be seen over multiple sports.

    So any effect of fluoridation on national team captains will be seen in other sports. Let’s check where the captains for other teams come from. All Whites, Silver Ferns, Black Sticks, Black Caps, Tall Whites, etc. Do we see the same effect with any other national team? No. It’s coincidence.

    “Petone has always been an unfluoridated area of the Wellington region.”. Well, first question raised here, since the effect can be seen in more than one sport, is to check whether the effect is seen in other sports. Football, netball, cricket, league, etc. You’d expect the effect to show up in more popular games than rugby as well. It doesn’t, so this remains a coincidence untill soundhill shows otherwise.

    Continuing with his fantasies about Petone… Onehunga has always been an unfluoridated area of the Auckland region. So let’s look for the same coincidences in Onehunga that soundhill noticed in Petone. Did they happen? No. Did they happen with other sports. No. Again, soundhill has noticed coincidences.

    Birmingham City Vs Manchester United. The two have more than one team each. We don’t even see the same coincidence in the Reserves, in the Ladies, in the Under-21s. We can go on and look at the records of teams that share the same water supplies: Aston Villa shares the same water supply as Birmingham City; Manchester City, Blackburn Rovers, Preston North End and Wigan athletic share the same water supply as Manchester United. Do we see the same “effect” in those teams? No. Again, it’s coincidence.

    “Non-fluoridated Canterbury has done very well in rugby.” One point on a three point graph? Where’s the rest of the points on the graph? soundhill apparently thinks there’s only three super-12 rugby teams. That doesn’t even justify the term coincidence!

    “Timaru…produced no more all blacks”. And neither did unfluoridated Putaruru (I picked Putaruru because it’s the source of Pump bottled water). soundhill apparently hasn’t noticed that there are hundreds if not thousands of rugby teams in New Zealand and not all of them, especially those in lower grades, are able to supply players for the All Blacks. It’s another coincidence.

    “Coincidences happen” – but that doesn’t even imply correlation, never mind cause and effect.

    As soundhill himself says “The coincidences are mounting.” Unfortunately, the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn’t let him see them as coincidences.

    Like

  67. soundhill

    Another coincidence for you:

    Putaruru – non chlorinated, non fluoridated. Their tapwater is marketed as “Pump.” No international players.
    Tokoroa – 10 minutes away, same aquifer, same DHB, same council, chlorinated and fluoridated. International players for both NZ and Australia.

    Coincidence? Of course. But are you going to surprise me by adding it to your existing list of coincidences?

    Like

  68. Stuartg Male and female can be affected differently.

    Players may consume more water when serious training occurs several times per week.

    Should take another look at Malin and Till and include temperature as well as latitude and altitude (UVB).

    Like

  69. Stuartg,

    Putaruru:
    Grant Fox – Former All Black
    Wayne Smith – Former All Black and Former All Black Coach
    Lorraine Moller – Athlete

    but it only has population of 3800, so not really enough young people for much local team competition.

    Which of the reps from Tokoroa were born after fluoridation in 1969?

    Like

  70. soundhill,

    “Stuartg Male and female can be affected differently.”

    You have proof of this? Unlike the epidemiologists that have studied it for more than seven decades? Show us. We, and the rest of the world, are waiting. But I won’t hold my breath.

    By the way, we’re still waiting for you to name even one person that has been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water since the practice started in 1945. Epidemiologists have been searching for such harm for over seventy years. They haven’t found it. Have you? Show us.

    Like

  71. soundhill,

    But you said the effect was almost immediately seen by Birmingham City after their water supply was fluoridated. If it only happens when people are born in a fluoridated place then you can eliminate almost all of your examples.

    Btw, we can start with Regina Sheck, born 1969, and then carry on from there if you really insist. But, as I said, it’s all coincidence. It doesn’t matter in the slightest until you show correlation.

    All of your examples are mere coincidence until you do the statistical analysis to show correlation. That’s up to you. No-one else will do it for you.

    Like

  72. soundhill,

    Hadn’t you noticed? By invoking change in performance shortly after fluoridation, as in Birmingham, you reduced the significance of fluoridation at the place of birth. You suggested the effect can be seen almost immediately.

    By introducing more than one sport, you suggested that it would be present in all sports.

    By introducing different grades of sport (All Blacks & Timaru & Petone, Birmingham City & Manchester United), you suggested that the effect would be present in all grades of sport.

    By invoking results from both NZ and the UK, you suggested the effect is observable worldwide.

    In other words, you are suggesting that the effect is present in all sports, all grades of all sports, found in all areas of the world, and occurs for any duration of Community Water Fluoridation.

    And you are further suggesting that an electrical technician from NZ, with absolutely no training in science, living in a fantasy world full of conspiracist ideas, has been able to detect what thousands of epidemiologists worldwide haven’t, in spite of their actively searching for something like this for over seventy years?

    Seriously?

    If there were such an effect, it would have been spotted even before fluoridation was started – locations around the world with higher than normal fluoridation would have been obvious because of their poor sporting performance. Such a finding would have been as obvious as the dental fluorosis seen in those areas.

    You would have been better trying to demonstrate that such an effect is present in areas with high water fluoride levels. But don’t bother trying – it isn’t.

    If such an effect has not been detected (it hasn’t – see the question you’ve been repeatedly asked about demonstrating harm in either individuals or populations from drinking optimally fluoridated water), then, by definition, it is not measurable. If it’s not measurable, then it has no significance.

    All your examples are coincidental. They are the random noise that scientists see in any scientific investigation. However, not having been trained in science, you are unable to determine noise from signal.

    All you’re doing is spreading FUD about CWF. And being really obvious about it.

    Like

  73. Tokoroa has been a dormitory town for the Kinleith paper mill. Young Tokoroa parents will have done much of their water drinking at Kinleith. Is the mill water/drinking water there fluoridated?

    Like

  74. “If it only happens when people are born in a fluoridated place then you can eliminate almost all of your examples.”

    Ionising radiation and a number of medications are supposed to be used with more care during pregnancy/infancy. They also may have adverse effects in later life. Some of the same damage principles will apply at all stages of life, but the effects may be worse when certain cells are developing.

    (Radiation is used to treat cancer since it damages the faster growing cancer cells more than normal ones.)

    Like

  75. Stuartg: “living in a fantasy world full of conspiracist ideas”

    You are suggesting that I imply the situation is like the asbestos conspiracy where knowledge of harm was suppressed?

    Like

  76. Stuartg: “You would have been better trying to demonstrate that such an effect is present in areas with high water fluoride levels. But don’t bother trying – it isn’t.”

    You need to demonstrate that persons making that claim understand interaction of variables. Such as hot climate increasing water consumption therefore adding to any effect of drinking water fluoride, and colder climate reducing it. Maybe also magnesium present in natural vs fluoridated water as a calcium/magnesium balance.

    Like

  77. I wrote: “Male and female can be affected differently.”

    Stuartg: “You have proof of this?”

    In lots of scenarios. Why should fluoridation be less sex-effect-related than other things?

    Like

  78. Soundhill: “David Fierstien courts of law have sentenced to death people who are not guilty.”

    I take it by that response you won’t be taking your legal arguments to Flint in order to try to recover over $100 Million paid in compensation to victims of lead poisoning. Odd. There’s a lot of money to be made, and you seem so sure of yourself.

    In fact, you are the only person I’ve ever heard of who is not willing to say that victims in Flint, Michigan were not poisoned by lead. That makes you a minority of 1 against 7.5 Billion.

    But you do make a good point. Courts do sentence people to death who are not guilty. Nevertheless, their guilt is “proven” in a court of law, factual or not.

    I’ll tell you what, to make it easier for you, . . . show me one successful lawsuit for health reasons by anyone who drank optimally fluoridated water and was harmed. That would be considered a documented example of someone who drank optimally fluoridated water and was harmed.

    And this is the 14th time I’m asking you for such evidence.

    Like

  79. “show me one successful lawsuit for health reasons by anyone who drank optimally fluoridated water and was harmed. That would be considered a documented example of someone who drank optimally fluoridated water and was harmed.”

    Claims for asbestos-related health injury started early last century. Settlements were in secret. It was some 60 years till the problem was proven in court sufficiently that companies began to go bankrupt from compensation payouts.

    Like

  80. soundhill,

    Cite your evidence that even a single person has been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water in the more than seventy years since CWF was introduced. Show that your ideas are not pure fantasy and that thousands of epidemiologists have been wrong with their decades of real research.

    David and myself have replied to the multiple questions that you have tried to challenge us with in your attempt to divert attention away from your inability to produce evidence of harm from CWF. They were hardly a challenge; Google usually provided an accurate answer on the first page.

    Others are now wondering why is it that you continue to be unable to answer a single challenge to your evidence-free fantasy ideas about CWF?

    You still can’t admit that, contrary to your fantasies, there is absolutely no evidence of harm from CWF. Your actions are making it evident that you are increasingly desperate to divert away from the fact that your fantasies are completely evidence free.

    Go back and re-read your comments. Scroll up the page. Look at how many times you have avoided answering a simple question. Look how many times you have attempted to divert from that question. Look how many times you have attempted to divert from other questions you don’t want to answer. Look how many times you have attempted to attribute your fantasies to others. Look how many times you try to inappropriately analogise instead of using readily available facts. Look how many times you completely ignore comments when they show your fantasies are wrong. See how your own comments increasingly resemble flight of ideas.

    All you’re doing is spreading FUD about CWF. You’re being really obvious about it. And you’re becoming increasingly panicky as you fail in your attempts.

    Like

  81. David,

    “That makes you a minority of 1 against 7.5 Billion”

    Surely there’s at least one other person that lives in soundhill’s evidence-free fantasy world of conspiracy? I’d have thought there may be – dozens?

    Like

  82. Soundhill says: “Claims for asbestos-related health injury started early last century. Settlements were in secret. It was some 60 years till the problem was proven in court sufficiently that companies began to go bankrupt from compensation payouts.”

    Irrelevant.

    This is the 15th time I am asking. Please cite any documented example of any human being who was physically harmed, in any way, by drinking optimally fluoridated water, . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Or . . I will accept any successful lawsuit you can cite in which someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water.

    Like

  83. soudhill,

    You may be interested in this article. It documents a reason why Manchester United often defeats Birmingham City (and Manchester City) Liverpool defeats Everton, Arsenal defeats Chelsea…

    Note that it doesn’t involve fluoride.

    Also note that it happens across multiple sports, and in multiple countries.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/6097954/Why-teams-in-red-win-more.html

    Red vs blue dominance has been documented in the UK football leagues for decades.

    Now, what colours do Canterbury play in?

    Like

  84. Stuartg: “David and myself have replied to the multiple questions that you have tried to challenge us with”

    But you haven’t been answering my replies. You people show you are losing by instead going into emotive language in a hope to persuade readers.
    Do you do the same with your patients? You should lose your licence.

    Like

  85. Soundhill, I’m sorry, is there something I haven’t answered? In the meantime . . .

    This is the 16th time I am asking. Please cite any documented example of any human being who was physically harmed, in any way, by drinking optimally fluoridated water, . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Or . . I will accept any successful lawsuit you can cite in which someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water.

    Like

  86. soundhill,

    A week ago, David asked you a simple question: “After over 70 years and many hundreds of millions of people enjoying the benefits of optimally fluoridated water, please cite one documented example of any physical harm to any person because they drank water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it, even for as much as a lifetime.”

    You now bleat: “But you haven’t been answering my replies.”

    Let’s have a look at what those “replies” consisted of, shall we? All we have to do is scroll back up the page…

    “It is called football in UK….
    “Reduced wins still carries statistical weight..
    “I am not attributing impaired football performance to fluoridation
    “I hadn’t thought of the connection between reduced rugby and soccer performance and water fluoridation as a correlation (this deserves a comment… if there’s no correlation then the only alternative is coincidence!)
    “Players get hot and drink lots…
    “I get notions… (we know!)
    “do you regard impairment as harm?
    “So reduced rugby ability or IQ should not be thought of as harm?
    “Children can be very trusting.
    “Former prime minister Robert Muldoon thought that milk being cheaper than Coca Cola…
    “Do “R” films or video games “harm” them?
    “I am noticing harm to populations (and we keep asking you for citations documenting that harm)
    “Show me a documented case of one child’s IQ being lowered by lead.
    “you are asking me for proof for one individual, over and over. (maybe because you’re not answering, over and over?)
    “my rugby – soccer studies show team impairment (but you never show us the statistical analysis to show it’s not coincidence)
    “epidemiology on populations can point to the effect of lead
    “It wasn’t always known that lead is toxic.
    “give proof it was the only thing changed in her life, not fluoride
    “Science progresses (…in spite of all of your efforts to prevent such progress?)
    “It could be just a coincidence (which is an absurd comment from a person who refuses to acknowledge that his own fantasies could be just coincidence…)
    “It took while before asbestos was accepted as a health hazard
    “Male and female can be affected differently (by CWF) {citation required}
    “Why should fluoridation be less sex-effect-related than other things? (there’s a sex effect of fluoride on dental health? Who new? {citation required} because the only documented effect of CWF is on dental health. That’s also a good example of the use of emotive language)
    “Maybe also magnesium present in natural vs fluoridated water as a calcium/magnesium balance.”

    And then there was the pièce de résistance, accusing others of what you are so plainly doing yourself:
    “You people show you are losing by instead going into emotive language”

    It would be interesting to understand why you consider a discussion of scientific knowledge to be a competition.

    “But you haven’t been answering my replies.”

    Did any of your “replies” actually answer the question? If so, where are the citations that you were asked for?

    With you, it’s obviously all FUD about CWF.

    *************

    Early on in the thread I made a comment to David:
    “You won’t get an answer to your question.
    Instead, it’ll be amusing to count the number of items in the Gish Gallop that’ll be used to avoid answering the question.”

    So far, soundhill, you have fulfilled my expectations extremely well.

    Are you going to prove me wrong by actually answering David’s question?

    Just to remind you: “After over 70 years and many hundreds of millions of people enjoying the benefits of optimally fluoridated water, please cite one documented example of any physical harm to any person because they drank water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it, even for as much as a lifetime.”

    Like

  87. Stuartg several days ago I wrote that lead is accepted as harmful in individual cases since epidemiology has shown it is harmful overall.
    In asking for proof that fluoridation is harmful in an individual case likewise needs epidemiological back up.

    To spell out what I am getting at you and David Fierstien seem to be saying there can be no epidemiological back up since there is no individual case proven. That is not saying anything.

    The epidemiology comes before the individual case acceptance by doctors and the like. not dependent on it as you are trying to make out.

    Like

  88. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, you say, “Stuartg several days ago I wrote that lead is accepted as harmful in individual cases since epidemiology has shown it is harmful overall.”

    Not quite. We know that lead in water is harmful because there are actual cases of people who have consumed toxic amounts of lead in drinking water, who now have elevated amounts of lead in their blood streams, who have been poisoned by lead by drinking tainted water.

    We call this Empirical Evidence. All science relies on empirical evidence. If you deny that empirical evidence is necessary, you deny the fundamental principle of science.

    I have given you two documented empirical examples of people who have been poisoned by lead from drinking water. This is a fact. If you dispute this as a fact, please take your arguments to a courtroom in Flint, Michigan and present your arguments there.

    The EPA action limit for lead in drinking water is 15 parts per billion.

    For the 17th time, please cite a documented example of anyone who has drank optimally fluoridated water and who was made sick by it in any way.

    Or . . Please cite a successful lawsuit for health reasons by anyone who claimed to have been made sick by drinking optimally fluoridated water.

    Like

  89. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, this is completely wrong: “The epidemiology comes before the individual case acceptance by doctors and the like. not dependent on it as you are trying to make out.”

    No. Epidemiology is dependent upon empirical evidence. All science is dependent upon empirical evidence.

    Please provide a legitimate source supporting your comment which I cited above.

    Like

  90. soundhill,

    Manifestly, on reading through your flight of ideas, you haven’t shown​ us documentary evidence that even a single person has been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water for even as long as seventy years. Contrast that to the individual harm from lead that you challenged David to provide in one of your unsuccessful attempt to divert the topic.

    Obviously you can’t produce evidence of individuals being harmed by CWF if they haven’t actually been harmed. Clearly that’s the case here.

    Instead you’re trying to divert again: “In asking for proof that fluoridation is harmful in an individual case likewise needs epidemiological back up.”

    Well, here’s your chance to show us the “epidemiological back up”.

    You previously said: “epidemiology on populations can point to the effect of lead”. And I noted that the same epidemiology on populations can also point to the effect of drinking optimally fluoridated water.

    Go ahead. Here’s your chance. Cite the documentation that shows any sort of harm produced by fluoride in a population that has been drinking optimally fluoridated water, 0.7ppm, for any length of time, even as long as seventy years.

    Like

  91. David Fierstien the doctors assigned the damage to lead in the environment since epidemiology says that is what lead can cause and it was present in sufficient quantities.

    Like

  92. Stuartg: ““I get notions… (we know!)”

    What word would you use for when a scientist dreams up a hypothesis to test?

    Strictly speaking they are not supposed to do a correlation table and report the results of the high correlations. At p <0.05 tehy have 1 in 20 chance that it was only a chance result. Dreaming up a notion first is supposed to offer some protection against that.

    Like

  93. Stuartg: “Cite the documentation that shows any sort of harm produced by fluoride in a population that has been drinking optimally fluoridated water, 0.7ppm, for any length of time, even as long as seventy years.”

    I brought up the lead example because as David Fierstien has said doctors assigned damage to lead and they do that knowing the dose and that epidemiological studies show that level has those effects.

    Firstly the epidemiology has to be done.

    To cite an anecdote does not provide proof.

    An alternative to an epidemiological study is a scientific experiment where a group of subjects are intentionally exposed and compared against a control group while all other variables are held constant. In many cases that would not be ethical even though scientific.

    Like

  94. soundhill,

    The epidemiology has been done. It continues to be done.

    There’s more than seventy years of epidemiological study of populations drinking optimally fluoridated water.

    That’s a lot of published papers, but I’d expect you to be familiar with them since you’ve been pushing FUD about fluoride in water for many years now.

    …Or are your notions merely evidence-free​ fantasies?

    Go ahead. Now’s your opportunity to cite even one epidemiological study that demonstrates harm in a population from drinking optimally fluoridated water.

    Like

  95. soundhill,

    “An alternative to an epidemiological study is a scientific experiment where a group of subjects are intentionally exposed and compared against a control group while all other variables are held constant.”

    And you’ve proposed exactly such observational experiments – most of your comments about sports can be classified as such. We’re awaiting you publishing your statistical analyses of them to show whether or not the observations are coincidence.

    Like

  96. Stuartg: “And you’ve proposed exactly such observational experiments”
    An epidemiological study is an observational study.

    Like

  97. Well, Soundhill, we’ve finally identified your problem.

    For the 2nd time, please provide a legitimate citation supporting this comment: ““The epidemiology comes before the individual case acceptance by doctors and the like. not dependent on it as you are trying to make out.”

    For the 18th time, please provide one documented example of any human being who has been harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime.

    Regarding this comment of yours: “An epidemiological study is an observational study.”

    Response: An observational study of what?

    Like

  98. David Fierstien: “Response: An observational study of what?”
    An epidemological study is one type of observational study whatever is being studied.

    Like

  99. For the 2nd time, please provide a legitimate citation supporting this comment: ““The epidemiology comes before the individual case acceptance by doctors and the like. not dependent on it as you are trying to make out.”

    A doctor prescribes or makes a treatment decision based on study knowledge if it is available. Maybe a drug trial or an epidemiological study or when symptoms have been shown to be only connected to one disease. Of course sometimes they are trying treatments themselves which may not be much use.

    Like

  100. “An epidemological study is one type of observational study whatever is being studied.”

    So, if I understand your comments, harm to human beings from lead in water, for example, could not have been known until an epidemological study was performed. As you say:

    “I brought up the lead example because as David Fierstien has said doctors assigned damage to lead and they do that knowing the dose and that epidemiological studies show that level has those effects.

    Firstly the epidemiology has to be done.”

    Now you say that an epidemological study is done to observe what is being studied.

    In the case of harm from lead to human beings, an epidemological study is done first. “Firstly the epidemiology has to be done.”

    You said “doctors assigned damage to lead . . (because) epidemological studies show that (a certain) level has those effects.”

    What effects? Why would you conduct a study to find currently non-existent effects which are dependent upon the study itself, since, as you say, the study itself validates any effects?

    Again, what effects? Somewhere in your circular thinking, actual effects must come into play.

    Therefore, for the 19th time, please cite any documented example of any harm (the necessary effects that you, yourself claim must exist) to any human being because they drank optimally fluoridated water.

    Like

  101. “Again, what effects? Somewhere in your circular thinking, actual effects must come into play.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_acetate

    Lead acetate was used as a sweetener. People had symptoms which were later connected to lead. If people had not been keeping an open mind the connection may not have been noticed between lead consumption and the illness it causes. For a long time it wasn’t. The sweet taste was nice so why would it be poisonous?

    Some monks did not drink wine for example therefore did not get the poisoning from the lead-sweetened wine. They were thought to be protected by God.

    There are already known effects of fluoride. Many of the studies noted by the Royal Society study related of levels in China greater than fluoridation. Then RS cited one study which claims fluoridation is IQ-safe – the Dunedin study. (Not many studies per your claim.) But I have challenged the Dunedin study authors to give more details about nitrate in the control water and demarcated vs diffuse dental fluorosis. They are not responding.

    “Again, what effects?”

    So a Dunedin study said a possible effect may be IQ loss. But they decided by their observational experiment that it is not. And I need more data before I accept that.

    In my case I say a possible effect is reduced performance at energetic sport. Stuartg thinks it is the colour of their gear which produces the difference. His ref says 10% which does not explain the differences I believe may be related to fluoridation.

    Like

  102. soundhill,

    Direct quotes from yourself:
    “I am not attributing impaired football performance to fluoridation.”
    “I see a strong correlation.”
    “Too strong a correlation for coincidence in my opinion.”
    “I hadn’t thought of the connection between reduced rugby and soccer performance and water fluoridation as a correlation”
    “The fluoridation-rugby impairment does not have to be a coincidence.”
    “My rugby – soccer studies show team impairment”
    “I haven’t calculated a correlation.”

    So, soundhill, you say that you both did and did not see a correlation between sports performance and fluoridation, that you are not attributing any impaired sports performance to fluoridation, and that your “studies” show team impairment although you have never bothered to calculate whether there actually is or isn’t a team impairment.

    I think that David’s comment about your “circular thinking” was too gentle.

    And yet your most accurate statement unambiguously documents your opinion of the likely origin of your “studies”:
    “The coincidences are mounting.”

    ******************

    Somehow, you appear to be very confused about what consists an epidemiological investigation:
    “Epidemiology comes before the individual case acceptance”
    “Firstly the epidemiology has to be done.”
    “An alternative to an epidemiological study is a scientific experiment where a group of subjects are intentionally exposed and compared against a control group while all other variables are held constant.”
    “An epidemiological study is an observational study.”
    “An epidemological (sic) study is one type of observational study whatever is being studied.”

    Paraphrasing your own words, we perform an epidemiological study by observing when a group of subjects are intentionally (or even unintentionally) exposed to a substance and then compare them against a control group, holding other variables constant.

    Now, how could we do that?

    Maybe we observe what happens when we expose Birmingham City to CWF and keep Manchester United as a control? Or Aston Villa with Manchester City as a control? Or Birmingham City with Preston North End as a control? Or…

    Or maybe we could observe unfluoridated Petone rugby as the control and the rest of fluoridated Wellington rugby as the test group? Or unfluoridated Onehunga as the control with fluoridated Auckland as the test group? Or unfluoridated Mosgiel as the control with fluoridated Dunedin as the test group? Or…

    As I have previously said, you have proposed, and even started, observational epidemiological experiments by telling people of your “studies” relating sports teams’ performance to fluoridation.

    It’s now up to you to do the statistical analysis and publish the results. No-one else is going to do it for you. Go ahead – if you can demonstrate your “studies” to be anything other than coincidence then you deserve to be acknowledged.

    Like

  103. soundhill,

    “Stuartg thinks it is the colour of their gear which produces the difference.”

    Read back. I gave you a reference. That’s all. You have then fantasised about the way I think.

    Actually, I’m highly sceptical about that reference and the idea behind it. My opinion is that it’s just click-bait. I used it to illustrate how you have developed cognitive fixation, just like the journalist who authored that reference, and so cannot comprehend that your observations may be the result of chance.

    You obviously took the reference much more seriously than I ever did, because you went on to say:
    “(The reference) says 10% which does not explain the differences I believe may be related to fluoridation.”

    WOW! More than 10% impairment in sports performance is attributable to CWF! That amount of impairment is really noticeable:
    About 1 second in the 100 metres
    About 23 seconds in the 1500 metres
    A couple of tries in a game of rugby
    Maybe 6 points in a game of netball
    Perhaps 9 points in a game of basketball
    And here’s me thinking that sports coaches are being fanatical about fractions of a percent impairment when an athlete doesn’t drink the coaches’ favourite brand of sports water drink!

    I look back at the thousands of epidemiologists industriously searching for over seven decades to find any harm to individuals or populations from drinking optimally fluoridated water, I look back at the thousands of textbooks written on CWF, at the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed journal articles published on the topic, noting that none have ever found any harm to an individual or a population from CWF, and one question comes to mind:

    Why and how are you, soundhill, the only person worldwide who has been able to notice this massive degree of impairment attributable to CWF?

    Like

  104. Stuartg, that word, “see.”

    You don’t seem to have retained the many shades of word meaning that many people have.

    One usage of the word, “see.”

    Do you see it making any difference if I drink distilled rather than spring water?

    Like

  105. soundhill,

    The source of the water that you drink makes absolutely no difference to me.

    Like

  106. soundhill,

    “see”, as in “I see a strong correlation”? Followed by “I hadn’t thought of … as a correlation”?

    Because the sentence “I haven’t calculated a correlation,” told us that you had not tested for mathematical correlation, I interpreted your meaning of “I see” as “I think” or “I conceptualise”. I could have interpreted the phrase as “I imagine”, or “I fantasise”, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

    If you did not mean something similar to “I think” or “I conceptualise”, then could you please enlighten us as to your particular meaning of the phrase “I see”?

    Like

  107. soundhill,

    “There are already known effects of fluoride”.

    Yes, with levels of fluoride well over those required for optimal reduction of tooth decay. Both David and I have asked you to cite evidence of harm, to either individuals or to populations, from drinking water with such optimal levels of fluoridation, levels well below those with which natural fluoride produces harm.

    It’s been well over a week, but you still have been unable to provide such evidence.

    I’m not surprised, because epidemiologists, searching for such evidence for more than seventy years, have also been unable to produce any such evidence.

    Like

  108. Stuartg: “I’m not surprised, because epidemiologists, searching for such evidence for more than seventy years, have also been unable to produce any such evidence”

    Do you have any discourses about the reduction in levels used?

    Like

  109. “Why and how are you, soundhill, the only person worldwide who has been able to notice this massive degree of impairment attributable to CWF?”

    Who else has thought to look at doses to vigorous sports people drinking more than average? There are recommendations to use a lesser fluoride rate in hotter climates. Why the bother if it be all so safe?

    Who has thought to look at individual differences same as exist for tolerance to gluten, casein, sodium, sugar, alcohol, eggs, lactose, pollen, animal danders, EMFs, kiwifruit, peanuts, …?

    Like

  110. David Fierstien

    Soundhill: “When lead in paint and petrol was being found to influence child health it would have been hard to tie individual IQs to the pollutant. But populations showed the difference.

    Show me a documented case of one child’s IQ being lowered by lead.”

    After I provided two documented examples of lead poisoning, you said: “It is likely but not certain that lead caused it. It could be just a coincidence.”

    This is your link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_acetate . . And from your link:

    “Pope Clement II died in October 1047. A toxicological examination of his remains conducted in the mid-20th century confirmed centuries-old rumors that he had been poisoned with lead sugar.”

    You’ve answered your own question. Pope Clement is a documented example of someone who was harmed by lead. It was empirical evidence from an autopsy, not an epidemological study which proved it. All science rests on empirical evidence.

    Your methodology is wrong, and you, yourself proved it.

    For the 20th time . . Please cite one documented example of any person who was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Like

  111. David Fierstien

    Soundhill’s comment:

    My Quote: “For the 2nd time, please provide a legitimate citation supporting this comment: ““The epidemiology comes before the individual case acceptance by doctors and the like. not dependent on it as you are trying to make out.””

    Soundhill’s response: “A doctor prescribes or makes a treatment decision based on study knowledge if it is available. Maybe a drug trial or an epidemiological study or when symptoms have been shown to be only connected to one disease. Of course sometimes they are trying treatments themselves which may not be much use.”

    You are talking about two different things, Soundhill.

    FIRST YOU SAY “Show me a documented case of one child’s IQ being lowered by lead.” Here you are talking about a health effect occurring after ingesting a toxic substance.

    You say it is not possible to cite one concrete example of harm by CWF because knowledge of toxic effects is dependent upon epidemiology. You need to look at populations as a whole in order to understand toxic effects. That’s what you are saying, and that is your excuse for not being able to provide even one example of harm.

    THEN YOU SAY: “A doctor prescribes or makes a treatment decision based on study knowledge if it is available.”

    Here you are talking about a medical treatment based on the study of its effects. A prescription is not a health effect. Two different things, Soundhill . . Sorry – Epic Fail on your part.

    Like

  112. soundhill,

    I see that you are still continuing your diversions and Gish Gallop.

    I see that you are still unable to answer David’s question and cite any evidence for harm to any individual or population from drinking optimally fluoridated water.

    Like

  113. David Fierstien: “You’ve answered your own question. Pope Clement is a documented example of someone who was harmed by lead. It was empirical evidence from an autopsy, not an epidemological study which proved it. All science rests on empirical evidence.”

    HIs lead was high but that does not prove it poisoned him. Now we know it is very likely, because someone has made the connection between lead levels and poisoning. I am in the process of looking for connection between fluoridation i.e. changed levels fluoride calcium and magnesium and other substances in water and individual reponses.

    Like

  114. Soundhill, for the 21st time, can you cite any documented example of anyone becoming physically ill because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime?

    Like

  115. David Fierstien: “THEN YOU SAY: “A doctor prescribes or makes a treatment decision based on study knowledge if it is available.”

    Here you are talking about a medical treatment based on the study of its effects. A prescription is not a health effect. Two different things, ”

    The medical diagnosis, (implied – perhaps I should have been more explanatory for you) treatment might be just wait and see or don’t worry. It is based on available knowledge as is any drug prescription.

    Like

  116. Brian – you say ” I am in the process of looking for connection between fluoridation . . . . ”

    You are always in the process of “looking” but you never come up with anything. I have asked for something, anything, I can cite about your “findings” on how fluoridation is destroying the All Balck’s game – and you have nothing. Absolutely nothoing.

    You sare simply arrogant. For you to be ” I am in the process of looking for connection between fluoridation . . .” counts as “evidence’ for the bad effects of fluoridation. You suffer from the same destructive syndrome as those suffering from The Putin Derangement Syndrome.

    For you allegations are “evidence” and then “fact.” But nothing to cite!

    Like

  117. soundhill,

    I’ve seen you make the same evidence-free comments about fluoride and sports for absolutely ages, although this is the first time I recall seeing you actually quantify the sporting impairment you believe is caused by CWF. (More than 10% – that’s similar to the difference between the Olympics and high school sports!)

    I’ve never seen citations from you to support these comments, although it would be expected that someone purporting to be an expert on fluoridation would have the necessary citations to hand.

    I’ve never seen any evidence of you attempting to test the veracity of your comments either, even though it has been repeatedly pointed out to you exactly how easy it would be to check for coincidence or correlation. Especially with such a massive effect! Again, someone purporting to be an expert on fluoridation would be expected to have done the testing and have the results to hand.

    No citations. No statistical testing of your “studies”. No change to your viewpoint or comments when you’re shown contradicting evidence. You provide a good example of cognitive fixation, something that you would have been instructed to avoid if you had actually been educated about science and the scientific method.

    In this thread you’ve repeatedly had the opportunity to provide citations supporting your comments. You’ve repeatedly had the opportunity to present your statistical analysis to show correlation and non-coincidence of your “studies”.

    I see that you haven’t taken the opportunity, which intimates that you are actually incapable of doing so.

    Of course, epidemiologists have been actively searching for evidence of harm to individuals and populations from drinking optimally fluoridated water for over seventy years. Theirs has been a somewhat more intensive search than your five minutes on Google and/or Mercola. Epidemiologists haven’t found evidence of harm, either, otherwise your anti-fluoride co-conspirators would have been crowing the results from the rooftops.

    In summary: Community Water Fluoridation has been around for more than seventy years. The level was set in part because there was no evidence of harm to individuals or populations at that level. Since then, epidemiologists have been continuously checking to ascertain the lack of harm.

    In over seventy years of continuous epidemiological research there has been no evidence found of any harm to individuals or to populations from drinking optimally fluoridated water. …Even for a lifetime.

    None of your comments have changed any of the facts.

    Like

  118. Ken says, “You suffer from the same destructive syndrome as those suffering from The Putin Derangement Syndrome.”

    I’ve asked Soundhill 21 times for one example of any person who has been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water – So far, nothing from him.

    I have asked Ken countless times to show me one example of RT, one of his sources, criticizing its own government. – So far, nothing from him.

    An objective reader would conclude that you are both suffering from the same delusional syndrome.

    By the way, Soundhill, for the 22nd time, please cite a documented example of any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Like

  119. David, you have either a very short memory (we are all getting old, aren’t we) or a very convenient one. You did in the past ask for an example of RT criticising the Russian government and I posted an example. A video interviewing that women (bugger, can’t remember her name – she produced that very bad anti-fluoride video) who fronted a popular RT programme at the time and criticised the involvement of the Russian Federation in Crimea. A specific criticism of the Russian government

    Relatively recent as she was objecting to US and UK newspapers which claimed she was sacked because of her criticism of the Russian government. She wasn’t, and only left some time later to work for a different news agency.

    You remember this, don’t you?

    On RT – I am currently finding it a but annoying because it does have an inevitable US or western bias. It is not a genuine Russian news service – manned (or more likely womaned) by Americans and/or exPats who have spent a long time in the US.

    I would love to see some of the genuine Russian programmes – I understand some of their current news and political discussion programmes are very lively and contentious. If only RT would divert some of its funding into providing translations for some genuine Russian programmes.

    The only times this seems to happen is during big conferences or the annual Q/A marathon session the president undertakes. Putin’s Q/A programme is a couple of months off but the programme always covers contentious issues and, yes, people do criticise the government during their questions.

    Like

  120. David Fierstien

    Ken, you say, ” I posted an example. A video interviewing that women (bugger, can’t remember her name . . . ) who fronted a popular RT programme at the time and criticised the involvement of the Russian Federation in Crimea.”

    Imagine that, an RT reporter who criticized the Russian involvement in Crimea. It sounds like you are describing Liz Wahl, who on March 5, 2014, went off script, during her live segment, and resigned her job while denouncing her employer RT for its allegedly distorted coverage of the 2014 Crimean crisis.

    Yes, I suppose that would be an example of an RT reporter criticizing its own government 🙂 I wonder if you have any examples of RT reporters who have criticized the Russian Federation, . . . And Still Have Their Jobs!

    Like

  121. Ken: I would love to see some of the genuine Russian programmes http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54172

    Like

  122. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, for the 23rd time, please cite a documented example of any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Like

  123. Dacid Fierstien: “for the 23rd time, please cite a documented example of any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.”

    As for lead there is need for epidemiological studies on which to base the diagnosis.

    You accuse me of circular logic, but no it is you. You claim there are no verifications of harm by fluoridation therefore there can be no epidemiological evidence that I am looking for, don’t you?
    That is very circular. Because doctors providing verification do so based on the epidemiology if not a scientific experimental approach.

    Firstly find the epidemiological evidence which cannot depend on individual verification of cause – it depends on it.

    Lin FF and others found that fluoride at levels relevant to fluoridation harms IQ if the subjects are short of iodine.

    Like

  124. I wrote: “Firstly find the epidemiological evidence which cannot depend on individual verification of cause – it depends on it.”

    Meaning the doctors diagnose based on epidemiology or experimental evidence which has has to come first. From knowing what happens to a statistically large enough group a doctor can say it is very likely another particular individual is affected in the same way and give his medical opinion/verification. Until there is epidemiological study or scientific experiment the doctor cannot verify a diagnosis.

    By suggesting there is not one verified example you then imply that no epidemiology has been found. But you are trying to make it sound much simpler as if one example is to be found first. No, not the case.

    Like

  125. Ken I am hoping to use an analogy to help spot two-valued thinking.

    An internal combustion engine produces power from an explosion dependent upon fuel, oxygen from air and heat.

    In the petrol engine the sufficient heat to start combustion is produced by an electrical spark.

    In a diesel engine the sufficient heat os brouight about by compression of the fuel-air mix and no electrical spark is used.

    A combination of factors work together to produce combustion but a spark is not always one of them.

    A spark may be helping or it may not it is not a matter of it being always necessary or always not.

    You write of Zhang’s study which claims an interaction between fluoride the COMT gene and IQ and claim it may only be the COMT gene variant affecting IQ. You don’t explain why you leave out consideration of interaction. You are looking like a person claiming spark plugs may not be necessary in internal combustion engines.

    Like

  126. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, you say, “Because doctors providing verification do so based on the epidemiology if not a scientific experimental approach.”

    Ah . . No. In the case of lead poisoning, doctors look at lead levels in blood. A doctor wouldn’t rely on a population study to make a diagnosis.
    You are basically saying, before epidemiology, nothing could be diagnosed. Are you really that far gone?

    For the 24th time, please cite a documented example of any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.”

    Like

  127. David FierstienL “Ah . . No. In the case of lead poisoning, doctors look at lead levels in blood. A doctor wouldn’t rely on a population study to make a diagnosis.”

    But it is the epidemiology which say what blood level give poisoning.
    Of course the doctor does not have to look up all the epidemiology. It is done for them in the medical guides which give the results.

    “The Centers for Disease Control (US) has set the upper limit for blood lead for adults at 10 µg/dl (10 µg/100 g) and for children at 5 µg/dl.”

    They have done that knowing how that level of lead affects health in a population.

    Like

  128. David Fierstien

    Soundhill: “But it is the epidemiology which say what blood level give poisoning.”

    Do you really believe this or are you just screwing with me? How would an epidemiological study know what to look for in the first place unless someone had originally been diagnosed with, for example, lead poisoning?

    Again, you are literally saying that before population studies were done, it was impossible to diagnose anything.

    How did they know it was Smallpox that was killing everybody since epidemics occurred before epidemiological studies were performed?

    That being said, . . For the 25th time, please cite one documented example of any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.”

    Like

  129. David Fierstien

    This is hilarious:

    “You accuse me of circular logic, but no it is you. You claim there are no verifications of harm by fluoridation therefore there can be no epidemiological evidence that I am looking for, don’t you?
    That is very circular. Because doctors providing verification do so based on the epidemiology if not a scientific experimental approach.”

    Let’s look at that.

    I claim there is no “verification of harm.” By that, you mean I claim there are no individual cases of any person being harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water. Got it.

    Soundhill says: ” . . . therefore there can be no epidemiological evidence that I am looking for, don’t you?”

    Response: Yes. Obviously. If there is no single person who has ever been harmed by drinking water with 0.7 ppm F in it, then obviously there could be no population of people who have been harmed by it.

    You do understand that populations of people are made up of individual people, don’t you?

    And then you corroborate by saying it another way: ” Because doctors providing verification do so based on the epidemiology . . ” No, they don’t.

    So . . to sum up, you say something nuts, and then you validate what you just said by saying the same nutty thing a different way.

    LET ME SIMPLIFY HOW NUTTY YOU ARE:
    You Say:

    “Until there is epidemiological study or scientific experiment the doctor cannot verify a diagnosis.”

    Then where did the first diagnosis come from?

    Like

  130. Are you Thick, David? She actually wasn’t sacked for her criticism. She wasn’t sacked – period.

    (There actually was an RT reporter who criticised Russian actions in Crimea on air and then resigned over it. I guess you would count her as “sacked.)

    Again you have misrepresented me and tried to crawl out of your mess instead of apologising.

    Like

  131. David Fierstien

    Oh Ken, . . this wouldn’t be a case of You misrepresenting Me would it?

    In regards to an alleged example of an RT reporter whom you claim criticized Russia’s involvement in Crimea, (a reporter whose name you couldn’t remember) . . .

    I said, “IT SOUNDS LIKE you are describing Liz Wahl, who on March 5, 2014, went off script, during her live segment, AND RESIGNED HER JOB while denouncing her employer RT for its allegedly distorted coverage of the 2014 Crimean crisis.”

    I don’t recall saying anyone was sacked.

    I know it’s only 6:30 am in New Zealand, . . maybe you should have a cup of coffee, or tea, before you continue.

    Like

  132. My brain may be old but it still works in the end.

    The RT frontperson I referred to was Abby Martin. She did not lose her job, she was not sacked – but the fake news media in the west claimed that she had. Hence her appearance on the programme discussing fake news. She was in conflict with UK papers who had lied about her.

    You resposne to my example was “I wonder if you have any examples of RT reporters who have criticized the Russian Federation, . . . And Still Have Their Jobs!”

    Well, Martin still had her job. Her decision to advance her career had nothing to do with her on-air criticism and she made the extremely clear in that iterview.

    Please stop playing with words.

    Like

  133. Brian – it is only polite when raising an issue like my comments in the Zhang paper to actually cite the source. I believe my comments were made in a draft paper I submitted to Fluoride.

    If spark plugs were relevant to the discussion perhaps the referees could have raised that.

    You will be pleased to know that the referees/editor instead demanded that my paper should not include any critique of the papers Hirzy and Connett relied ion in their paper. Childishly they demanded that if I was to critique any of these papers I should also include and criticise “pro-fluoride” papers.

    Currently that version of the paper was rejected and a new one submitted – basically that I have uploaded at Researchgate – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315454880_Does_drinking_water_fluoride_influence_IQ_A_critique_of_Hirzy_et_al_2016

    You will notice it does not mention Zhang or spark plugs.

    However, I would have thought if you wanted to make a point about “two-valued” thinking you would have used Hirzy and Connett (and Zhang and others) as an example of blatant two value thinking. After all, my critique has been condemning exactly that – the inability to think outside a chemical toxicity mechanism or to consider confounders- as well as the complete lack of data to support their claims.

    Like

  134. soundhill,

    “Until there is epidemiological study or scientific experiment the doctor cannot verify a diagnosis.”

    So, according to you, no-one (including yourself) can diagnose sports impairment from CWF because there is no epidemiological study that shows sports impairment can be or has been caused by CWF.

    Or maybe you’re saying that even though epidemiologists have studied millions of people with CWF for over seven decades, those are insufficient numbers and time to demonstrate harm from CWF? In which case we can ignore your​ claim that tiny numbers of sportspersons are affected by CWF since the numbers are obviously many factors less than required to establish correlation.

    It’s not “circular logic” you’re suffering from; it’s a complete deficit of logic!

    Like

  135. soundhill,

    For someone who’s supposedly concerned about Community Water Fluoridation, you’re doing an amazing job of ignoring CWF and diverting the topic to lead poisoning.

    You also seem to have missed the findings of the last eighty years or so of lead research. Your knowledge of lead poisoning doesn’t seem to have advanced beyond about the 1930s.

    How about ignoring lead and answering the questions you’ve been asked about fluoride?

    Like

  136. Here is Abby Martin’s criticism of the Russian involvement in Crimea – together with her later comment about how it was cherry-picked by western media and that she had not lost her job (although the channel offered to send her to Crimea to report on events there).

    I have already posted the video interview when she puts that whole event into context of the lies being told about the incident in western media. Surely you remember that (it was done for your benefit)? Please don’t force me to hunt that down again.

    Interesting to see one of the reactions of her personal statement on-air was that this is not allowed to happen on western TV programmes. 🙂

    Like

  137. By the way, Fluoride has suddenly upped their standards for accepting submitted papers.

    I have published (and reviewed) many papers in my career but have never had a paper finally rejected. Never.

    It looks possible that this paper will be rejected – the “referees” have behaved quite childishly.

    Strangely, I consider that if the only paper in my career that was rejected was by Fluoride – and the paper provided a scientific analysis of the Hirzy/Connett poaper – I would feel quite proud.

    Like

  138. Ken says: “Please stop playing with words.”

    Please. 1.) The problem isn’t that I’m “playing with words.” . . . 2.) The problem isn’t that I “misrepresented (you) and tried to crawl out of (my) mess instead of apologising.” . . . 3.) The problem isn’t that I am “thick.”

    The problem is that 1.) you can’t read, . . 2.) you have a pro Russian bias, . . 3.) and your inability to read puts you Out-of-Touch with reality, which puts you in your happy place, where your pro-Russian bias is confirmed and pushes you to immediately reject the JIT findings because they don’t confirm your bias . . Because . .

    1.) You were actually on the ground in Ukraine so of course you have first-hand knowledge of evidence which would allow you to reject the findings of actual investigators who DID look at physical evidence . . 2.) What? You WEREN’T actually on the ground in Ukraine? You DIDN’T actually look at any of the evidence that the Joint Investigation Team looked at? . . 3.) So it’s just easier to reject evidence that you’ve never actually seen because it confirms your pro-Russian bias.

    Like

  139. I took a look at Abby Martin’s video. What a Joke! It is entitled, Abby Martin criticizes Russia over Crimea: Keeps Job!”

    Wow!! What a shining example of a Free Press! She actually gets to keep her job after criticizing Russia. Do you not realize that this video, (This is your ONE example of RT criticizing its government. Wow! DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT THE FACT IT HAS TO ADVERTISE THAT SHE DIDN’T ACTUALLY GET FIRED (sacked) is pathetic!??

    Of RT, you actually said, your quote: “They are an excellent news service.”

    In Russia, on RT, it is a Headline when a reporter doesn’t get fired (sacked) because she criticizes her government. In sharp contrast . . .

    In the United States, criticism of our government, by our Free Press, occurs on a daily basis. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein brought down a President. Morley Safer filmed his own government committing War Crimes and freely broadcast it.

    There was no headline that Morely Safer didn’t get sacked. Why would there be? Woodward and Bernstein became National Heroes.

    Oh . . But Abby Martin didn’t get Sacked because she spent two minutes condemning her own government which stole real estate from another sovereign nation with the use of military force. That is the headline. She didn’t get sacked.

    You, Sir, with your pro-Russian bias, have your head so far up your ass, that you have no concept of what “an excellent news service” is. An excellent news service has the freedom to speak to those in power without the fear of consequence. RT, your idea of an “excellent news service” is a far cry from that.

    But I doubt these words will sink in.

    Like

  140. Ken why have you removed Zhang from the paper?

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Perrott/publication/313853949_CRITIQUE_OF_A_RISK_ANALYSIS_AIMED_AT_ESTABLISHING_A_SAFE_DAILY_DOSE_OF_FLUORIDE_FOR_CHILDREN/links/58ab6217aca27206d9bd1267/CRITIQUE-OF-A-RISK-ANALYSIS-AIMED-AT-ESTABLISHING-A-SAFE-DAILY-DOSE-OF-FLUORIDE-FOR-CHILDREN.pdf

    My combustion engine discourse is an analogy, not something you have talked about. It also encompasses the concept of a spark or trigger or perhaps catalyst in a general sense. Consider whether COMT or fluoride may “catalyse” each other’s effect if not some other way be interacting variables.

    I suppose it would be possible in a very static society for a genetic variation to show up between groups 18 km apart. But how likely? is that why you have edited?

    Like

  141. Brian, I explained that the referees/editor insisted I remove all criticism of papers they considered anti-fluoride. In other words, the inclusion of comments on those papers would lead them to reject my paper (they still might). That is the mickey mouse outfit “Fluoride” for you.

    And why are you not critiquing connect, Hirzy and their mates for their blinkered view of the data – refusing to look past a chemical toxicity model? Oh, I know – you suffer from the same problem.

    Like

  142. What is your problem, David? You were claiming that an RT person could not criticise the Russian government on-air and keep her job. That is patently not true as Abby Marton’s example shows. Some acknowledgment of your mistake would be normal, wouldn’t it?

    Her later comments on the fact she did not lose her job and had declined the offer to report from Crimea were simply a response to western headlines. They were not interested in her ability to make such criticism or the fact her job was safe – they were only interested in that specific criticism. As she pointed out they never headlined her other many comments and concerns about Ukraine. In fact, years later they were reporting she had been sacked – which is why she complained and got a retraction.

    It was interesting that Greenwood (I think) commented that no one in the western media would have kept their job. You obviously disagree. Any examples of a reporter going outside their employer’s restrictions and keeping their job?

    Not that I am implying RT employees have such restrictions. In my view, they seem to have far too much freedom – hence Martin’s disgusting video opposing fluoride.

    I was interested to hear an intelligence expert on CNN point out that whenver he was asked to comment on sources like CNN, BBC, etc., he always had to go through a pre-interview so that could check his message. Appaently when he went on RT he didn’t have to do that. His statement about this really upset the CNN reporter. 🙂

    Like

  143. Stuartg: “You also seem to have missed the findings of the last eighty years or so of lead research. Your knowledge of lead poisoning doesn’t seem to have advanced beyond about the 1930s.”

    The point is that fluoridation knowledge will also be developing. There is a long time to go to get as many years as beyond the first suspicions of lead poinsoning hundreds of years ago.

    Like

  144. Ken, your comment: “What is your problem, David? You were claiming that an RT person could not criticise the Russian government on-air and keep her job.”

    The problem is that either you can’t read, or your pro-Russian bias clouds your ability to accurately interpret reality.

    Show me my quote where I said an RT reporter could not criticize her government and keep her job. Please. In the meantime . . to quote you:

    “Some acknowledgment of your mistake would be normal, wouldn’t it?”

    Yes it would, Ken, and I will be waiting for that acknowledgment.

    How timely: “Any examples of a reporter going outside their employer’s restrictions and keeping their job?”

    Yes, Bill O’Reilley. I direct you to the Fox News policy against sexual harassment.

    To read your bullshit, undocumented, antidotes about the utopian RT Free Press, one must wonder why, for example, during the 2008 South Ossetia War, RT correspondent William Dunbar resigned after the network refused to let him report on Russian airstrikes of civilian targets, stating, “any issue where there is a Kremlin line, RT is sure to toe it.”

    You will note, I did not say he was sacked 😉

    Like

  145. David, you did write:

    “I wonder if you have any examples of RT reporters who have criticized the Russian Federation, . . . And Still Have Their Jobs!” and something similar before that.

    I provided you with the example of Abby martin – which seems to made you lose your rag (for the wrong reasons).

    Now, this whole business is getting tiresome.

    While it has somewhat derailed a rather silly batch of trolling by Brian on this post, it has certainly created a lot of confusion for me. I can not keep track of, or find, your comments.

    I suggest my most recent post descriobing the dogs returning to their vomit.

    Like

  146. “Some acknowledgment of your mistake would be normal, wouldn’t it?”

    Still waiting for that acknowledgment, Ken . . unless it only applied if I was acknowledging a mistake to you.

    Ken, your comment: “What is your problem, David? You were claiming that an RT person could not criticise the Russian government on-air and keep her job.”

    Thank you for quoting me directly. As you can see I never claimed that an RT person could not criticize the Russian gvt. on air and keep her job.

    Oh . . was that the acknowledgment of your mistake?

    Like

  147. soundhill,

    Lead research in the 1930s was well behind where fluoride research is in the 2010s, but well done for trying to divert from fluoride to lead yet again.

    Anyone would think that you wanted to ignore or hide the truth about the more than seventy years of epidemiological research into the lack of harmful effects of CWF.

    Like

  148. I see part of my job as teaching others how to think. Other people have similar vocations. An interesting quote from someone else who also likes to teach others to think:
    “I have found that not only do people with no formal training in science think that they know more than the entire scientific community, but in almost every case, they think that there is a fundamental and obvious problem that essentially all scientists have either missed or are willfully ignoring.”

    He puts it more eloquently than I would be able to, and he also looks at how arrogant people can be when their faith/belief is contradicted by the entire of science. https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/04/03/scientists-arent-stupid-and-science-deniers-are-arrogant/

    “It’s amazingly arrogant to think that you can, via a few minutes of Googling, find a fundamental and obvious problem that essentially every scientist everywhere in the world missed, despite their years of training and experience.”

    He doesn’t use Community Water Fluoridation as an example of the arrogance and ignorance of science deniers, but if he wished to do so he would find an excellent illustration in this thread.

    Like

  149. Stuartg Seventy years of research bur how many papers? And I doubt that “Fluoride” is the only journal with an agenda.

    Like

  150. Stuartg: “I see part of my job as teaching others how to think.”

    Teaching them by example to call things they do not want to answer as gish gallop. And analogies which are making good points as “changing the subject,”

    Like

  151. soundhill,

    If the subject is Community Water Fluoridation, then why do you actually ignore the subject? You continue to invoke lead, or internal combustion engines, or milk, or Coca-Cola, or video games, or “R” rated films, or climate, or ionising radiation. That’s a pretty good example of flight of ideas.

    It seems that you are prepared to mention just about anything in a discussion about CWF, as long as it’s not actually CWF.

    There are more than seventy years of published epidemiological research into the effects of drinking optimally fluoridated water. You don’t appear to be prepared to mention any of it. That’s more than weird from a person who maintains to be an expert in CWF.

    If there is any evidence of harm, to either individuals or populations, from drinking CWF, then somewhere among those decades of research there are the papers for you to cite.

    Anybody would think that your inability to cite evidence of harm from CWF, your inability to produce statistical evidence from your own “studies”, your continuing attempts to divert the subject, especially by the use of inappropriate “analogies”, means that you have absolutely no evidence that drinking optimally fluoridated water produces harm in either individuals or populations.

    They would also think that your imaginary expertise in fluoridation is pure pretense.

    And they would be right.

    Like

  152. soundhill,

    Here is your grand opportunity.

    Cite your documented evidence of any harm that has occurred to either individuals or to populations by the drinking of optimally fluoridated water, for any length of time, even for an entire lifetime.

    If you can’t do so, even with the assistance of your anti-fluoride co-conspirators, we’ll be happy to accept that there is none.

    Like

  153. soundhill,

    So “Fluoride” is a “journal with an agenda”?

    You didn’t need to confirm that to us.

    Like

  154. Stuartg: “I see part of my job as teaching others how to think;”

    One way he uses is attribute things to them that they have not said.
    Or bending words.

    I had written: “Stuartg Seventy years of research bur how many papers? And I doubt that “Fluoride” is the only journal with an agenda.”

    Stuartg got flustered by my question and rather than answer tried to fluster me by saying my noting of what Ken has just implied and then commenting as “confirmation.”

    And if I have “confirmed” it then I have also “confirmed” (In Stuartg’s meaning of the word) and not been challenged by Stuartg that other journals have agendas. Meaning they may censor out stuff which casts doubt on fluoridation safety.

    Like

  155. soundhill,

    “After over 70 years and many hundreds of millions of people enjoying the benefits of optimally fluoridated water, please cite one documented example of any physical harm to any person because they drank water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it, even for as much as a lifetime.”

    That was the challenge given you early in the thread.

    It’s been asked of you about forty times (I’m not bothering counting).

    It would appear that the only candidate for being “flustered” by being incapable of answering a question is yourself.

    But well done for yet again trying to divert from your inability to provide citations supporting your fantasies about CWF.

    Like

  156. Soundhill,

    “Seventy years of research bur how many papers?”(sic)

    Perhaps you could actually read the comments? I gave an answer to that question days before you asked it.

    Like

  157. Stuartg: ““(Me:) Seventy years of research bur how many papers?”(sic)

    Perhaps you could actually read the comments? I gave an answer to that question days before you asked it.”

    Very indefinite so as to hope readers will believe it to be many.

    PLease tick

    1-5
    6-15
    16-25
    26-46
    46-85
    86-200
    201-400
    more

    Like

  158. Soundhill, for the 26th time, please cite any documented case of any human being who was harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

    Like

  159. David Fierstien
    Using the Manchester United vs Birmingham City football results – 106 games starting 19th century I have given Manchester United 1 for a win 0 for a draw and -1 for a loss.
    Starting from 1979, 8 years after fluoridation stated in Birmingham City, Manchester United had no more losses against them. I assert that Birmingham City players were harmed by fluoridation.
    Using 0 for the years up to 1978 and 1 for the years from then on I have used Vassarstats to do a rank correlation.
    Results n=106, Rs=0.3041, t=3.26,
    p (two tailed) = 0.001506.

    Correlation is not causation, however in this case the chance is 15 parts per 10,000 that it is only chance that fluoridation after a short delay “explains” over 9% of the results.

    Stuartg thinks their colours explain the results. They have had colour changes over the years. Besides Birmingham City now wear blue at home and red when away and the reverse maybe for Manchester United, though I have to find out what happens when they play one another. Then I shall be able to do that correlation.

    Like

  160. soundhill,

    Congratulations on yet another attempt to divert from your inability to provide an answer to David’s question: “After over 70 years and many hundreds of millions of people enjoying the benefits of optimally fluoridated water, please cite one documented example of any physical harm to any person because they drank water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it, even for as much as a lifetime.”

    As to your diversion to football: Aston Villa have the same water supply as Birmingham City. Manchester City, Blackburn Rovers, Preston North End and Wigan Athletic have the same water supply as Manchester United. Test your idea by showing us the same analysis between those teams as well.

    Heck, you could even show us the same analysis between Birmingham City and Manchester United Ladies team. Or their reserves. Or the Under-21s. Or the Under-18s.

    But you’re not prepared to, are you? Because those analyses would prove your “studies” to be entirely coincidence.

    Cherry picking results and ignoring the rest of the real world is an indication that all you are doing is spreading FUD about CWF.

    Like

  161. soundhill,

    “Stuartg thinks their colours explain the results.”

    Sigh! You really don’t read other persons’ comments, do you?

    My comment: “Read back. I gave you a reference. That’s all. You have then fantasised about the way I think.

    Actually, I’m highly sceptical about that reference and the idea behind it. My opinion is that it’s just click-bait. I used it to illustrate how you have developed cognitive fixation, just like the journalist who authored that reference, and so cannot comprehend that your observations may be the result of chance.”

    But, if you continue to fantasise about CWF impairing sporting performance by more than 10%, you will have to demonstrate that that journalist was wrong in his opinion that red sports colours can give more than 10% advantage in sporting competitions. Use the same statistical analysis that would be appropriate for your own “studies” to do so.

    That journalist’s opinion of why Manchester United tends to defeat Birmingham City is just as valid as yours – that is, both are cherry picked coincidence.

    Like

  162. soundhill,

    “After over 70 years and many hundreds of millions of people enjoying the benefits of optimally fluoridated water, please cite one documented example of any physical harm to any person because they drank water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it, even for as much as a lifetime.”

    You really are incapable of providing an answer to that question that is based in the real world, aren’t you?

    Like

  163. Stuartg: “Test your idea by showing us the same analysis between those teams as well.”

    Aston Villa football club: record v Manchester United

    This time I put the fluroidated and non-fluoridated teams in the opposite order.
    Rs = -0.2375 or over 5.6 % “cause” by fluoridation.
    p= 0.0011

    Like

  164. Other Aston Villa matches on your list: Blackburn Rovers, Preston North End sometimes dip into Division 2 and I don’t know how to deal with that. And Wigan Athletic only came in after fluoridation started in Birmingham.

    Birmingham City v Blackburn Rovers is often in Div 2, as is Birmingham City v Preston North End.

    Like

  165. soundhill,

    Still incapable of answering David’s question, then?

    “After over 70 years and many hundreds of millions of people enjoying the benefits of optimally fluoridated water, please cite one documented example of any physical harm to any person because they drank water with 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in it, even for as much as a lifetime.”

    Like

  166. soundhill,

    “Blackburn Rovers, Preston North End sometimes dip into Division 2 and I don’t know how to deal with that.”

    Perhaps you could use the same method? After all, Birmingham City also “sometimes dip into Division 2” (the Championship League – in fact, that’s where they are currently playing) and the problem didn’t seem to worry you there.

    If there is a real effect rather than imaginary (“more than 10%”, remember?), then you will be able to see the same effect in Birmingham City vs Manchester United Reserves, Ladies, Under-21s and Under-18s. Show us the effect over all the teams in those two clubs. Then show us the effect over multiple clubs, multiple leagues, multiple locations.

    You need to remember that it is your responsibility to show whether this blip you have noticed, between two teams from two out of currently ninety-two clubs in the leagues, is coincidental or not.

    I’ve previously given you some ideas of how you can test whether this is coincidence or not. These are really simple ways that you can use without even leaving the comfort of your own keyboard:
    You can look at the results of other teams in the same two clubs – Reserves, Ladies, Under-21s, Under-18s.
    You can look at other clubs with the same water supplies. I suggested Manchester City, Blackburn Rovers, Preston North End, Wigan Athletic.
    You can use their Reserves, Ladies, Under-21s, Under-18s as well.
    You can determine the fluoridation status of every club in the leagues and look at their performances.
    You can even do the same for the Scottish leagues, or the French, or the Spanish, or the German, or the Russian, or the Italian, or the Argentinian, or the USAnian…

    There’s plenty of data out there, soundhill. It’s up to you to show the evidence that you haven’t just cherry picked a statistical blip due to chance.

    Like

  167. soundhill,

    Always look for hidden assumptions in your analysis of data.

    Your hidden assumption is that teams from different leagues are equal in skills and abilities.

    Manchester United and Birmingham City play in different leagues because they aren’t equal in skills and abilities.

    Like

  168. Stuartg: “Manchester United and Birmingham City play in different leagues because they aren’t equal in skills and abilities.”

    Yes they haven’t seemed to play each other since 2011, Birmingham City managed to stay in Premier League till then but its lack of wins has relegated it. Why has it dropped so much since after fluoridation?

    Like

  169. soundhill,

    “Why has it dropped so much since after fluoridation?”

    Before you get to ask that question, you first have to show statistical correlation. We’re still waiting for you to do that.

    A scientist notices something interesting. They form a hypothesis. Then they test the hypothesis, using different data from that used to generate the hypothesis. That testing indicates whether the hypothesis is worth taking further, whether it’s just a coincidence or may not be.

    You’d know this if you had taken any lessons in the use of science and the scientific method.

    You’ve noticed some interesting results between two football teams from two clubs. Each of the clubs has multiple teams you could use to test your (almost) hypothesis. The two clubs are part of a league system that contains ninety other clubs, each with multiple teams, that you could use to test your (almost) hypothesis.

    That’s without considering amateur football or other sports.

    Why do I say (almost) hypothesis? Because you’ve never actually stated a hypothesis in order to test it. All you’ve ever done is point to some interesting results.

    You haven’t advanced from noticing some interesting results between two teams from two clubs

    There’s no indication that you’ve even considered other causes for those interesting results:
    Was there a change in team strip? Yes for Birmingham City.
    Did the change from natural to artificial fibres have anything to do with it? Possible.
    Did the players change? Yes to both clubs.
    Did the ball change?
    Did the club location change?
    Did the club manager change?
    Did the team coach change?
    Did the grass used for the playing surface change?
    Did the structure of the pitches used change?
    Did the boots the players wore change?
    Did the water supply to Manchester change as well? Yes!

    Soundhill, you really do need to learn how a scientist thinks in order to advance your notions. I’d suggest that you start off with attending science classes at high school.

    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