Search Results for: grandjean

Special pleading by Philippe Grandjean on fluoride

Scientists are as human as anyone else. They aren’t immune to jumping on bandwagons, getting bees in their bonnets, special pleading or selectively interpreting their data to support a pet hypothesis or an obsession. The scientific peer review process restrains … Continue reading

Politics of science – making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear

Anti-fluoride activists have some wealthy backers – they are erecting billboards misrepresenting the Canadian study on many New Zealand cities – and local authorities are ordering their removal because of their scaremongering. Many New Zealanders are concerned at the scaremongering by … Continue reading

Anti-fluoridationists rejection of IQ studies in fluoridated area.

This is another article in my critique of the presentation Paul Connett prepared to present to a meeting at Parliament in February. I deal with his coverage of the studies of IQ effects where community water fluoridation (CWF) is used. … Continue reading

Fluoridation not associated with ADHD – a myth put to rest

The myth of community water fluoridation causing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is just not supported by the data. I show this in a new paper accepted for publication in the British Dental Journal. This should remove any validity for … Continue reading

Cultural and ideological bias in scientific literature reviews

  The scientific community is international but it is surely dominated, and influenced by, something less international – the overwhelming predominance of  the use of the English language. In the past when that dominance was less extreme scientists were more aware of … Continue reading

Alternative reality of anti-fluoride “science”

Paul Connett made many unsupported claims in his presentation against community water fluoridation (CWF) to Denver Water. Here I debunk a claim where he rejects most scientific studies on the cost-effectiveness of CWF. Connett asserted two things in his presentation: … Continue reading

Poor peer review – and its consequences

See below for citations used The diagram above displays links between the journal, editors and reviewers in the case of the paper Malin & Till (2015). I discussed these links before in Poor peer-review – a case study  but thought a diagram merited … Continue reading

Poor peer-review – a case study

Many scientists are not impressed with the peer-review processes scientific journals use. Like democracy, this peer-review is better than all the available alternatives but it certainly doesn’t guarantee published scientific papers are problem-free. Sure, peer-reviewed sources are better than others which … Continue reading

More poor-quality research promoted by anti-fluoride activists

Anti-fluoridation propagandists must think all their Christmases have come at once. They at last have a “peer-reviewed” scientific paper they can claim supports their position. What’s more, it is the second such paper to appear in the last month. But … Continue reading

Open letter to Lisa Hansen on NZ Fluoridation Review

Dear Lisa, There are mistakes and misinterpretations of the scientific literature in your recent open letter to Sir Peter Gluckman and Sir David Skeggs. The letter also misrepresents the NZ Fluoridation Review (Eason et al., 2014) and the Fluoride Free NZ (FFNZ) report … Continue reading