Mainstream media “mob violence” over Helsinki summit

Professor Cohen is always good value and we should take these comments of his seriously. After all, there is nothing more serious today than the threat of war between the US and the Russian Federation. Yet we have politicians and the mainstream media preferring to promote this threat. They seem to want to prevent any step towards relaxing international tension and divert attention by waving their dirty domestic laundry on the international scene.

Yes I know, I will probably be attacked (again) for using a clip from Tucker Carlson and Fox. There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to ignore or reject serious arguments because they appear on a “non-approved,” “non-official,” or alternative media. But be honest – that reaction, and the fact it is a knee-jerk one, simply demonstrates the self-censorship which people have had imposed on them.

Particularly in this case where Professor Cohen is not given any space on the “liberal-approved” mainstream media to present his highly sensible views.

The worst aspect of all this is the diversion of public opinion from what should be the substance of such summits.

What is this media hysteria and bullying, and self-censorship, doing? It is preventing consideration of the real content of this important international summit.

No discussion of real issues

Where is the media discussion on questions (and possible moves towards agreement on these questions) like a return to the Start Nuclear Treaty, the danger presented by stationing anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe, problems created by US withdrawal from the Iran Treaty and the Paris climate change agreements, provision of security for Israel, settlement of the war in Syria, humanitarian aid to the victims of that war, the fight against terrorism, a treaty on cyberwar, etc., etc? Things that really matter and affect the future of this planet and its people.

Why is it that US journalists at the Summit press conference showed absolutely no interest in these substantive issues? They were simply there to fight out their non-acceptance of the 2016 election result.

I think this is disgusting. Instead of attempting to prevent war and to do something substantial to reduce international tension the US establishment is carrying out their dirty domestic partisan warfare in public. We have a media-intelligence agency coalition fighting with a President who (maybe wisely) refuses to take the fight head on. A strong president might be expected to take on an intelligence establishment which has become partisan and is actively constricting his actions. Instead, he appears to mumble and backtrack like a coward.

No sensible person would ever claim to have full confidence in the US intelligence establishment – come on, look at their record.

A media created smokescreen

But meanwhile the real interests of people in the US, and indeed the world, get ignored by a compliant media.

And groups and commenters on social media get sucked in by this circus like easy fools.

Come on, there are real problems in the world – the Trump circus is a diversion imposed on you by the US media-political-intelligence establishment. An establishment which still works, behind the smokescreen they have created, to impose their diktat on the world.

Similar articles

Advertisements

Blatant misreporting of latest OPCW report on chemical weapons in Syria

BBC caught out promoting fake news about OPCW report

The Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) reports no evidence of banned chemical weapons use by the Syrian government in Douma last April. This conflicts with the strong claims of NATO states and most of the mainstream media at the time. It also shows that the illegal missile attacks by France, UK and USA (FUKUS) on Syria at the time (see The “heart of the Syrian chemical weapons programme” destroyed?) were completely unjustified.

While the NATO governments involved have yet to respond to the OPCW report (let alone make apologies for their actions) many mainstream media outlets seem determined to continue promoting fake news when it comes to Syria. Some major news outlets have completely misrepresented the OPCW findings.

OPCW has problems but got this one right

I have commented on some earlier OPCW reports on Syria and have found them unconvincing, biased or relying only on terrorist sources (see Another shonky OPCW chemical incident report on Syria and Chemical weapons use in Syria UN report flawed by political bias).

However, this one is a bit different. It is an interim report on the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, last April. This incident got a lot of publicity with France, UK and USA declaring they had evidence which proved there had been an attack using sarin. This alliance (FUKUS) was sufficiently confident with their “intelligence” to order an illegal missile attack on several sites in Syria. (see The “heart of the Syrian chemical weapons programme” destroyed?)

This interim report is also different because the area of alleged attack was soon liberated by Syria and Syria, together with Russian Military Police and the UN Office for Project Services, was able to stabilise the area and enable inspectors from the OPCW to take samples and interview people in the buildings which had allegedly been attacked. A big difference to earlier reports which had relied only on “open sources,” and the testimony and samples provided by the White Helmets – a group affiliated with the jihadists and which actively campaigns against the Syrian states and has a history of false reporting.

While this is only an interim report some conclusions are clear (paragraph 2.5 in Summary):

“No organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties.”

Media coverage

I have yet to see any response from NATO governments, particularly those comprising the FUKUS attack group. A sharp contrast to their vociferous accusations at the time of the alleged incident.

However, it appears that much of the mainstream media, and some of the sources it relies on, will draw unwarranted conclusions from this interim report to support their narrative.  For example, Al Jazeera claims Interim OPCW report finds proof of chlorine used in Syria’s Douma.

That is an outright lie. It did not give any such proof or even make that claim.

There is also this from the BBC:

Again an outright lie – the report found nothing of the sort.

Reuters are going with Chemical weapons agency finds ‘chlorinated’ chemicals in Syria’s Douma. Mind you this headline is a “correction” – “(Corrects to “various chlorinated organic chemicals” instead of chlorine).” Technically correct but misleading.

Sky news is claiming Chemical attack confirmed in deadly Douma strikes, but OPCW finds no evidence of sarin. Again wrong. No evidence of sarin but also no evidence presented of any chemical attack at all.

ABC also misrepresented the OPCW report claiming Chlorine used in Syria’s Douma, no trace of nerve agent, Interim OPCW report finds.

The NZ Herald was more neutral in their report Watchdog reports on alleged Syria attack behind airstrikes.

On the other hand the Xinhua Chinese news agency correctly reported Various chlorinated organic chemicals found in samples from Douma attack sites: OPCW, and RT correctly reported Nerve agents not found in samples from Syria’s Douma – interim OPCW report saying (in its second sentence ““Various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples” from two locations in the Damascus suburb of Douma.”

And I get the impression most of the “alternative” media sources I see on social media are reporting the OPCW findings correctly. So what was that about “Fake News” and the strong recommendations we get to wear blinkers so that we do not see alternative news sources?

Bellingcat also misrepresents findings

Eliot Higgins, who runs the Bellingcat organisation which provides “open source” information often used by western governments and media, also misrepresents the OPCW report. His organisation is responsible for initiating the story that the MH17 flight was shot down in eastern Ukraine by a Russian BUK unit especially imported for the occasion (and exported immediately afterwards).  Bellingcat is also responsible for many of the claims of chemical weapons used by the Syrian government.

Higgins tweeted:

What is the basis for misleading reports of chlorine use

The OPCW report mentions chlorine only twice – in this paragraph describing the original open source and media reporting of the alleged incident (paragraph 3.1 in Background):

So, no evidence of chlorine use found by the OPCW team. Those making this claim will point, in justification, to the fact that “chlorinated organic chemicals” were found at a few of the examined sites (paragraph 2.5 in Summary):

“Various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from Locations 2 and 4, along with residues of explosive.”

Many of the commenters I have seen on social media who resort to this to prove their claims of chlorine use seem not to understand the chemical differences involved or to argue that traces of any chlorinated organic chemicals must mean chlorine had been present.

Surprisingly, the OPCW did not draw any conclusions from the presence of these chemicals and are still attempting to establish their significance. I would have thought their job was to show if the trace levels found were at all unusual for environmental samples.

As a chemist I do not find the OPCW detection of traces of these chemicals at all surprising. For example, the report mentions the presence of “dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid” in samples of concrete debris, wood fragments, a water tank wood support, and some clothing.  But these chemicals are common in drinking water and even groundwater (see the Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Dichloroacetic Acid in Drinking-water ). Some of the chemicals found are common chlorinated compounds in treated wood (e.g. bornyl chloride and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol as mentioned in a footnote to Annex 3 of the OPCW interim report).

So, in fact, the identified chlorinated organic chemicals are what one may expect from such samples or especially samples taken from areas where explosives have been used.

This OPCW report is still of dubious scientific quality

I find a lot wrong with this OPCW report – but first the positive.

It followed (mostly) the OPCW guidelines for on-site inspection and sampling. This is a sharp contrast with the earlier OPCW reports on Syria where investigators relied on samples and testimony from jihadi affiliated groups like the White Helmets and their associates. This was possible because Douma had just been liberated and the Syrian Government and Russian Armed Forces made an immediate request for the OPCW to send their own observers to check media claims. (Although, given their willingness to trust jihadi-linked groups based in a terrorist-controlled area it does seem strange that the OPCW was unwilling to send their investigators to those areas and rely on terrorist guarantees for security in past investigations. Although, I am being sarcastic. Even in the case of Douma the OPCW team, was concerned about attacks from suicide bombers which seem to operate freely in the terrorist-held areas).

But have they learned?

In paragraph 5.1 describing their activities and timeline the OPCW say:

“Following reports in the media of the alleged incident on 7 April 2018, the Information Cell of the Secretariat immediately informed the FFM team and initiated a search of open-source information to assess the credibility of the allegation. The major sources comprised news media, blogs, and the websites of various non-governmental organisations. The assessment by the Information Cell was that the credibility of the allegation was high. Based on this information, the Director-General initiated an on-site investigation.”

Will the OPCW learn from this specific incident. In  previous reports they stopped at “The assessment by the Information Cell was that the credibility of the allegation was high” – and they would have this time of the Syrian, Russian and UN military had not provided them the security they required for onsite inspections.

The OPCW assessment was that the credibility of the jihadi-connected groups was “high.” Their own inspections showed they were mistaken. Will they be more careful with such claims in the future?

This question is important as NATO countries at the UN Security Council earlier this year effectively prevented adoption of mandatory on site inspections for UN-related chemical weapons investigations. At the OPCW the NATO countries have also pushed through a policy enabling the OPCW to go beyond its investigatory role and carry out a political role of apportioning blame.

The science is shonky

I find it incredible that the report should simply list identification of traces of chlorinated organic chemicals without either providing some sort of indication of the concentrations involved or comparing levels with measurements from  control samples – taken from areas outside the alleged attack area. This is a basic scientific mistake.

Those who wish to claim that the presence of chlorinated organics “proves” chlorine was used in this area could well be right. But only if the concentrations of these chemicals was much higher than normal for environmental samples.

I really can’t help thinking that this shoddy reporting of the science is a political trick enabling the report to be misrepresented. The OPCW is, after all, an international body and subject to the same sort of political manoeuvring we have come to expect from all such international bodies.

Interviews in country X!

The report states (paragraph 8.17:

“The FFM team interviewed a total of 34 individuals; 13 of these interviews were
conducted in Damascus and the remainder in Country X. Analysis of the testimonies is ongoing.”

Two issues for me here:

1: 13 interviews in Damascus – where most witness could have been found and 21 interviews in “Country x?” What this means is that more people from the defeated jihadi groups and their families were interviewed than those remaining in Douma who may have been less motivated to lie.

2: Country X! really? This is meant to be an intelligent report – not a spy thriller. There is absolutely no reason to be so coy about the location of the people interviewed. This is just childish.

I should note that the defeated “rebels”/terrorists and their families were given the opportunity to be transported to Idlib (still in terrorist hands). This has been a common feature of settlement agreements as areas are liberated. Of course, many choose to stay – even those who had been actively fighting with the militants. There is usually a provision for fighters to formalise their citizenship and even join the Syrian Army.

Many of the “rebel” fighters and members of affiliated organisations travel from Idlib into neighbouring Turkey – and further on. Why is the OPCW afraid to reveal the location of their interviewees in Turkey or other countries? Are they concerned this might reflect on the reliability of their testimony?

The warehouse and chemical production facility.

The Syrian government also asked the OPCW to investigate a chemical production facility and warehouse they had found deign liberation of East Ghouta and Douma. They believe these had been sued by terrorists to manufacture chemical contain weapons. (Similar facilities had been found in East Aleppo where terorists appeared to be adding chemicals to projectiles used in their “hell cannons.”

Only one paragraph was devoted to this inspection – paragraph 8.16: Warehouse and facility suspected of producing chemical weapons:

“At the warehouse and the facility suspected by the authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic of producing chemical weapons in Douma, information was gathered to assess whether these facilities were associated with the production of chemical weapons or toxic chemicals that could be used as weapons. From the information gathered during the two on-site visits to these locations, there was no indication of either facility being involved in the production of chemical warfare agents or toxic chemicals for use as weapons.”

That is all – no details. No inventory of chemicals held at the sites. No sign of what the warehouse and production facility was actually used for.

Now, I can accost the Syrians may have been completely wrong in their suspicions about these sites – after all that assessment was made by military officers on the ground in the heat of battle, not chemical weapons experts. But I find the lack of information frustrating, even suspicious.

Were any cylinders of chlorine present at these sites. After all, if politically motivated commenters and media wish to misinterpret the presence of normal traces of chlorinated organic chemicals in collected samples why should they not also be forced to consider stocks of chlorine held in terrorist controlled areas -even if their declared use was innocent.

Conclusions

At last, and OPCW report on Syria actually based on factual evidence, the samples and interviews collected by the OPCW on site. A great advance over earlier reports based on “evidence” from terrorist-connected sources and social media or “open sources.”

But I wish the OPCW was more serious in reporting their scientific findings. Reporting traces of chlorinated organic chemicals without any indication of concentrations and comparison with normal environmental samples is shoddy work laying their information wide open for misrepresentation and distortion. Given the current geopolitical struggles and the way international organisations can be manipulated, I can’t help feeling this shoddy reporting was possibly intentional.

Despite these weaknesses, I think this report shows what is possible. It does show that the military action taken by FUKUS last April was not only illegal it was either based on poor intelligence and, more likely, based on claims these governments knew to be false. It is always good to see such blatant political and military hypocrisy exposed.

However, the weaknesses in the report show that more must be done to improve the scientific quality of OPCW work and reduce political influence on that work. This aspect is important because the recent changes giving OPCW a role in apportioning blame for alleged attacks open up that organisation to being so politicised it will lose all credibility.

Similar articles

Time for a serious auditing of Porton Down’s nerve agent stocks?


Amesbury, the site of the latest UK nerve agent poisoning is only 12 minutes drive from Porton Down – which carries stocks of these types of nerve agents.

Isn’t it about time the UK authorities took a serious look at Porton Down – like a rigid auditing of their stocks of nerve agents (especially of the “novichock” group)? In fact, this should have been the first action of investigators – and not just accept assurances from staff.

The “Russia did it!” excuse seems more and more like the story of the dog who ate the homework.

Salisbury, the site of the UK nerve agent poisoning 4 months ago is only 18 minutes drive from Porton Down – which carries stocks of these types of nerve agents.

See also: Where could you get a nerve agent in Salisbury?

Similar articles

June ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking

I notice a few regulars no longer allow public access to the site counters. This may happen accidentally when the blog format is altered. If your blog is unexpectedly missing or the numbers seem very low please check this out. After correcting send me the URL for your site meter and I can correct the information in the database.

Similarly, if your blog data in this list seems out of whack, please check your site meter. Usually, the problem is that for some reason your site meter is no longer working.

Sitemeter is no longer working so the total number of NZ blogs in this list has been drastically reduced. I recommend anyone with Sitemeter consider transferring to one of the other meters. See  NZ Blog Rankings FAQ.

This list is compiled automatically from the data in the various site meters used. If you feel the data in this list is wrong could you check to make sure the problem is not with your own site meter? I am of course happy to correct any mistakes that occur in the automatic transfer of data to this list but cannot be responsible for the site meters themselves. They do play up.

Every month I get queries from people wanting their own blog included. I encourage and am happy to respond to queries but have prepared a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) people can check out. Have a look at NZ Blog Rankings FAQ. This is particularly helpful to those wondering how to set up sitemeters. Please note, the system is automatic and relies on blogs having sitemeters which allow public access to the stats.

Here are the rankings of New Zealand blogs with publicly available statistics for June 2018. Ranking is by visit numbers. I have listed the blogs in the table below, together with monthly visits and page view numbers. Meanwhile, I am still keen to hear of any other blogs with publicly available sitemeter or visitor stats that I have missed. Contact me if you know of any or wish help adding publicly available stats to your bog.

You can see data for previous months at Blog Ranks

Subscribe to NZ Blog Rankings Subscribe to NZ blog rankings by Email Find out how to get Subscription & email updates Continue reading

Anti-fluoride campaigners exhaust their legal channels with another loss

NZ Supreme Court Building, Wellington

The NZ Supreme Court has delivered its judgments and local anti-fluoride campaigners (and their big business supporters) seem to have come to the end of the line with their legal actions to prevent community water fluoridation (see Supreme Court rules against Taranaki anti-fluoride campaigners and Supreme Court rules South Taranaki fluoridation allowed).

Specifically, the Supreme Court delivered two judgments rejecting three appeals by NZ Health Inc. These appeals arose from High Court rejection of challenges by New Health NZ to prevent South Taranaki District Council from fluoridating drinking water in Patea and Waverly. While dealing with local situations these legal actions, ongoing since the end of 2012, inhibited other councils throughout New Zealand from making fluoridation decisions for fear of the cost involved in possible legal defences.

In effect, the Supreme Court judgements free up other councils to go ahead with fluoridation decisions, although the impending legislation transferring decision-making to District Health Boards may also cause delays.

The Supreme Court judgements were welcomed by health authorities and many New Zealanders concerned about the time wasting tactics used by anti-fluoride campaigners and their big business supporters.

Nature of the judgments

Court judgements can be complex but the Supreme Court provided a press release to help readers understand this case (see Fluoridation: New Health NZ v South Taranaki DC). This also provides a brief history of the legal actions since 2012.

Several things stand out to me.

The courts cannot rule on the science

The scientific arguments commonly presented by anti-fluoride campaigners are not considered in this judgement – this is as it should be. Courts do not decide the science.

Through this whole procedure lawyers for New Health NZ presented a litany of misrepresentations of the science we have come to expect from anti-fluoride campaigners. Apparently these campaigners are so used to relying on arguments misrepresenting the science they just could not help themselves even though the courts do not arbitrate on scientific matters.

I have always considered this somewhat strange. The strongest arguments that anti-fluoride campaigners can present relate to freedom of choice and the rights of minorities in social decisions. Yet they always seem to lead with misrepresentation and distortion of the science and only fall back to their strongest arguments when these misrepresentations are challenged by actual consideration of the science.

The statutory power of councils

New Health NZ argued that councils do not have the statutory authorisation to add fluoride to drinking water. The Supreme Court majority dismissed this ground for appeal. The dismissal was based on:

“the Council’s general power of competence in s 12 of the Local Government Act and in light of its duty under the Health Act to protect, promote and improve public health in its region. The relevant provisions had to be interpreted against the background that fluoridation had been lawful in New Zealand for decades prior to enactment.”

Claim that fluoridation breaches the NZ Bill of Rights.

On this question the Supreme Court:

“considered that the conferral of a statutory power to fluoridate water to levels prescribed by the drinking water standards was a justified limit on the right protected by s 11 of the Bill of Rights Act”

Or that:

“the Bill of Rights Act meant that local authorities could fluoridate water only where doing so in the particular district would be demonstrably justified in terms of s 5, an assessment which may depend on the local conditions.”

So, although there were subtle differences in the arguments of separate members of the court this claim by New Health NZ was rejected.

Not a unanimous decision

No doubt anti-fluoride activists will make much of the fact that there were differences between members of the Supreme Court on some details. I don’t think such differences are at all surprising or will necessarily give these asctivists the comfort they will attempt to derive from them. One of the judgements (NZSC59.pdf) gives detials of the arguments presented by sperate court members

The issues considered by the Court relate to interpretations of the Health Act and the NZ Bill of Rights. This involves considerations of ethical issues and the practical implementation of democratic procedures. There is no pre-ordained right or wrong answers to such matters and they are normally decided by prevailing procedures, ethical approaches and political matters.

It is possible to argue wither way on such issues. This is why I consider anti-fluoride campaigners make a mistake in their concentration on scientific matters which can easily be decided (and which they misrepresent) . If they put more effort into debating the ethical and political aspects they might have more success in winning people to their arguments and in achieving their political demands.

Who has been financing this legal action?

The Supreme Court press release describes New Health NZ, the anti-fluoride group which fronted the legal action, as a “consumer advocacy group.” This is factually wrong. New Health NZ was formed by the NZ Health trust to front such actions but the NZ Health Trust is, in fact, a lobby group for the “natural”/alternative health industry in New Zealand. It is effectively representing big business and not consumers. (Although, strangely, it has registered itself as a charity – perhaps this should be challenged by someone).

In fact, very few consumer advocacy groups could afford such legal action. The cost of defending against this action was substantial. South Taranaki mayor Ross Dunlop said the legal battle had cost the council at least $300,000-$350,000. The Ministry of Health assisted with funding but one can see how the fear of such legal costs has scared councils from making fluoridation decisions in the six years these issues have been before the High Court and then the Supreme Court. Even in this last case, the Supreme Court ordered New Health NZ to pay the Council only $20,000 towards costs.

The New Zealand Health Trust has funded, through New Health NZ, this legal battle to the tune of about $180,000 per year. I described this in my articles  Who is funding anti-fluoridation High Court action?,  Corporate backers of anti-fluoride movement lose in NZ High Court and Anti-fluoridationists go to Supreme Court – who is paying for this?

The financial returns from the NZ Health Trust and New Health NZ clearly show that money is flowing from the “natural”/alternative health industry (which is big business), via the NZ Health Trust (a lobby group for that industry) into New Health NZ which has then used it to find their anti-fluoridation legal activity to the tune of about $180,000 per year ($340,000 in 2017).

This graph shows the correspondence of grants received by New Health NZ with grants paid by the NZ Health Trust.

The size of the grants received by New Health NZ corresponds to payments for consultancy & professional fees. It is most likely this represents the funding used for the legal campaigns against community water fluoridation.

A clear example of big business funding trying to deny a safe and effective social health programme for New Zealanders

Similar articles

 

 

 

Magical World Cup Gala Concert

I have attended several concerts in public squares during European summers and always enjoyed them. Great atmosphere.

But thanks to international broadcasting and modern smartphones I woke up this morning to this concert and it was magical.

Red square on the day before the opening of the world cup. International singers and performers. Beautiful music and an appreciative international audience.

And finishing with beautiful fireworks and the bells of the Spassky Tower.

Incredible.

Similar articles

May ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking

Image credit: Follow Teacher Blogs for Daily Inspiration & Classroom Tips

I notice a few regulars no longer allow public access to the site counters. This may happen accidentally when the blog format is altered. If your blog is unexpectedly missing please check this out. Send me the URL for your site meter and I can correct the information in the database.

Similarly, if your blog data in this list seems out of whack, please check your site meter. Usually, the problem is that for some reason your site meter is no longer working.

Sitemeter is no longer working so the total number of NZ blogs in this list has been drastically reduced. I recommend anyone with Sitemeter consider transferring to one of the other meters. See  NZ Blog Rankings FAQ.

This list is composed automatically from the data in the various site meters used. If you feel the data in this list is wrong could you check to make sure the problem is not with your own site meter? I am of course happy to correct any mistakes that occur in the automatic transfer of data to this list but cannot be responsible for the site meters themselves. They do play up.

Every month I get queries from people wanting their own blog included. I encourage and am happy to respond to queries but have prepared a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) people can check out. Have a look at NZ Blog Rankings FAQ. This is particularly helpful to those wondering how to set up sitemeters. Please note, the system is automatic and relies on blogs having sitemeters which allow public access to the stats.

Here are the rankings of New Zealand blogs with publicly available statistics for May 2018. Ranking is by visit numbers. I have listed the blogs in the table below, together with monthly visits and page view numbers. Meanwhile, I am still keen to hear of any other blogs with publicly available sitemeter or visitor stats that I have missed. Contact me if you know of any or wish help adding publicly available stats to your bog.

You can see data for previous months at Blog Ranks

Subscribe to NZ Blog Rankings Subscribe to NZ blog rankings by Email Find out how to get Subscription & email updates Continue reading

Anti-fluoridation activists buy scientific credibility using a predatory publisher

A group of well-known anti-fluoride activists have just published some new research. Well, this is what their social media publicity will tell us.

In fact, this is not new research. It is simply the republication of a shonky paper from two years ago as a  chapter in a book produced by a predatory open access publisher.

It is a clear example of anti-fluoride activists attempting to buy scientific credibility. This book chapter cost them GBP £1400!

The “new” paper, or book chapter, anti-fluoride people will be promoting is this:

Hirzy, J. W., Connett, P., Xiang, Q., Spittle, B., & Kennedy, D. (2018). Developmental Neurotoxicity of Fluoride: A Quantitative Risk Analysis Toward Establishing a Safe Dose for Children. In J. E. McDuffie (Ed.), Neurotoxins (pp. 115–131). Rijeka: InTech.

In fact, this is simply a slight rehash of the paper published 2 years ago:

Hirzy, J. W., Connett, P., Xiang, Q., Spittle, B. J., & Kennedy, D. C. (2016). Developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride: a quantitative risk analysis towards establishing a safe daily dose of fluoride for children. Fluoride, 49(December), 379–400.

Almost word for word. And the authors acknowledge this at the beginning of the chapter with an introductory statement:

” This work has, in slightly different format, form and content been published in the journal Fluoride, Vol. 49(4 Pt 1):379–400, December 2016.”

I guess that saves me the job of critiquing this new version – my analysis and critique of the original paper was posted as the article  Debunking a “classic” fluoride-IQ paper by leading anti-fluoride propagandists. I also discussed the issues in other articles (see Connett & Hirzy do a shonky risk assessment for fluorideAnti-fluoride authors indulge in data manipulation and statistical porkies, and Anti-fluoridation campaigners often use statistical significance to confirm bias).

I have also submitted for publication a more formal critique of the original Hirzy et al., paper – see Does drinking water fluoride influence IQ? A critique of Hirzy et al. (2016)and  CRITIQUE OF A RISK ANALYSIS AIMED AT ESTABLISHING A SAFE DAILY DOSE OF FLUORIDE FOR CHILDREN.

Perhaps I will just repeat this qualification given by the authors in the first paper (and repeated in the book chapter), as it does call into question the whole campaign against community water fluoridation (CWF). They say:

“However, when comparing a fluoridated area of the USA to an unfluoridated area it would be hard to discern a mean IQ difference, because of the multiple sources of fluoride intake besides drinking water (Table 5). These sources greatly reduce the contrast in total fluoride intake between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. A very high hurdle is thus created to gaining useful information in the USA, as it was in the New Zealand study [5], via a large, long-range longitudinal epidemiological study of fluoride and IQ.”

They are, in effect, accepting that no study of CWF has shown an IQ effect and argue that such studies will never show an  effect. Because, they argue, there is only a small difference in fluoride dietary intake between children in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.

The fact that studies show no effect of fluoidation on IQ drives their need to “explain away” these results using dubious estimates of dietary intake. However they are essentially conceding there is no point campaigning against CWF. If they want to stick with their “explaining away” argument then, if anything, they should campaigning against other forms of dietary intake and leave CWF alone.

Scientific credibility

Anti-fluoridationists often argue that they have science on their side – and many of them seem to honestly believe it. Of course, when one is singing to the choir it is easy to delude oneself. The facts are that most claims made by anti-fluoride activists do not stand up to scientific scrutiny and when they cite scientific reports they are usually misrepresenting them.

I just wish these campaigners would sit down and actually read the papers they keep touting – very often they just do not say what is claimed for them.

On the other hand a small number of scientifically dubious papers do make their way into the scientific literature and these get used as “proof” by activists. Usually these are published in poor quality journals (like “Fluoride” where Hirzy et al., originally published their paper) and this is especially true when the authors are known anti-fluoride activists.

So, a combination of misrepresentation of the scientific literature and citation of poor quality papers get churned out again and again by campaigners to give scientific credibility to their arguments.

Shonky publishers

In my article Anti-fluoridation propagandists promoting shonky “review”, I discussed the use of shonky journals by anti-fluoride activists. These are usually open access journals which charge authors for publication and have very poor or non-existent peer review standards. I quoted one commenter as describing these journals as “bottom feeders,” but they, and their publishers, are often simply described as “predatory.”

bottom feeder

Some “peer-reviewed” journals really are “bottom-feeders.”

Predatory because these publishers scam researchers and exploit young or naive scientists, often from third world countries, who are impressed by the ease of publication and apparent distinction. An ease which is lubricated by author payments and little or no proper peer review.

Prospective authors can search lists identifying such predatory publishers and journals. So I did my own search and was not surprised to find that the IntechOpen publishers of the Hirzy et al., (2018) book chapter are on such lists. However, even a search of the IntechOpen website and their information for authors showed the signs typical of such predatory publishers. This is what IntechOpen will give you for your money (GBP – see Open Access Publishing Fees):

  • £1400 gets you a book chapter;
  • £4000 will get you a compact monograph, and
  • £10,000 will give you a long form monograph.

So, it looks like Bill Hirzy, Paul Connett, Quanyong Xiang, Bruce Spittle, and David Kennedy had a whip around (probably digging into the Fluoride Action Network funds) and produced £1400 to buy themselves some apparent “scientific credibility.”

I say apparent because more and more readers of scientific literature are becoming aware of the problem of poor quality journals and predatory open access publishers. Rather than providing scientific credibility, publication in such outlets may in fact leave a bad mark on a scientist’s reputation and credibility.

But I guess the politically motivated activists looking to confirm their biases will not care.

Similar articles

 

Another shonky OPCW chemical incident report on Syria

Collection of samples from the site of an alleged chemical attack in Saraqib, Syria, by a White Helmets “sample collection team” affiliated with “rebels”/terrorists in the area.  OPCW Report on Saraqib incident.

Last week the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) published a new report on a chemical incident in Syria (see OPCW Fact-Finding Mission Confirms Likely Use of Chlorine in Saraqib, Syria). It claims “that chlorine was likely used as a chemical weapon on 4 February 2018 in Saraqib, Idlib Governorate, Syrian Arab Republic.”

Yet again this very political word “likely.” Unfortunately, the report displays the same sloppiness and lack of adherence to the OPCW’s own procedures which caused earlier reports to be discredited (see for example Chemical weapons use in Syria UN report flawed by political bias). In particular, no on-site inspections, no authentication of interviews or samples, and reliance on “rebel”/terrorist affiliated groups for their information and samples.

No, this is not the report we are waiting on – one dealing with the highly publicised alleged “chemical incident” in Duoma more recently. I certainly hope that one will be better – and the chances are it will because the OPCW was forced to handle this situation in a more honest way.

Whereas the Syrian government and the Russian armed forces asked the OPCW to send a team to Duoma to make its own investigations, the OPCW investigation of the Saraqib incident did not involve any on site inspection or sampling. The Saraqib report bases its conclusions simply on “open source” material and on samples and testimony provided by the jihadi-affiliated “White Helmets” (which unethically calls itself “Syrian Civil Defence”). For example –  see this table extracted from the OPCW report.

Readers can download the OPCW report here – Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria Regarding an Alleged Incident in Saraqib, Syrian Arab Republic on 4 February 2018.

According to the Saraqib report (paragraph 4.3):

“The FFM (Fact-finding Mission) noted that during an investigation, complete, direct, and immediate access to the site of an allegation provides the greatest opportunity to collect information.”

Of course, this is the only way for such a FFM to produce a credible conclusion. This is particularly relevant to this specific case because instead of following its own recommended procedures for examination and establishing lines of custody the FFM relied on:

“examination of existing reports; assessment and corroboration of background information; conduct of interviews with relevant medical care providers, alleged casualties, and other individuals linked to the reported incident; review of documentation and records provided by interviewees; analysis of the signs and symptoms of victims as reported by interviewees; and receipt of environmental samples, for subsequent analysis.”

In practice the FFM report is simply based on testimony and samples provided by the “White Helmets/”Syrian Civil Defence” – a controversial organisation closely linked to the jihadis with a political policy of calling for NATO intervention in Syria and a record of falsifying video reports (see my previous articles on the “White Helmets”).

Paragraph 4.6 illustrates the complete reliance on such suspect sources:

“Through liaison with representatives of several NGOs, including Same Justice/Chemical Violations Documentation Center of Syria (CVDCS), the Syrian Civil Defence – also known as White Helmets – (SCD) and the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), the FFM contacted witnesses and confirmed their willingness to provide testimony and potential evidence. Furthermore, the FFM coordinated with the NGOs to organise movement of the witnesses. “

Why can’t  (or won’t) Syrian opposition provide security guarantees for OPCW?

Of course, they justified this by claiming “various constraints, mainly related to security, have not enabled immediate access to sites by the FFM.” But there is no sign that the OPCW attempted to get security guarantees or even contacted the military units in the area. Nor is there any sign that the NGOs they relied on (the White Helmets and associated groups who are linked with the military groups in the area) made any attempt on their behalf to arrange for a site visit.

Duoma was also in a military active area. Syrian and Russian armed forces, together with a UN security team, provided security guarantees for the OPCW investigation team. A similar situation could have been organised in Saraqib – after all the area was under the military control of the jihadi militants.

In Duoma, Russian chemical weapons specialists carried out their own investigation and sampling – but, correctly, considered that an OPCW investigation would be far more acceptable to world opinion. The same procedure was used in the OPCW investigation of the Salisbury alleged chemical incident. Although they took subsamples of material collected by the UK authorities the OPCW team also took their own samples. This means that their report, if we ever get to see it (see OPCW on Salisbury poisoning – one step forward, two back?) can be more authoritative than one relying simply on UK samples.

Why should the OPCW consider the jihadi affiliated groups in Saraqib any more respectable or acceptable than the Russian (or UK) experts? If they had produced a report on Duoma using only Russian-supplied samples and testimony they would have been laughed at. Why do they expect us to accept an even less reliable or objective report for Saraqib?

Similar articles

Not just another rat study

A new high-quality study of the effect of fluoride on the memory and learning behaviour of rats has produced definitive results. Anti-fluoride campaigners had great hopes this study would bring an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) – but their hopes have been dashed.

The study showed no effect of fluoride on the memory, learning and motor skills of rats thus reinforcing the consensus that CWF is safe

Animal experiments are commonly used to investigate possible health effects of chemicals like fluoride. This enables strict research protocols without the ethical problems faced by human studies. Consequently, there have been a large number of investigations of the effect of fluoride on animals. Some of these have suggested harmful effects. The US anti-fluoride activist organisation, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) lists 45 studies “where mice or rats treated with fluoride were found to suffer impairments in their learning and/or memory abilities” (see FLUORIDE AFFECTS LEARNING & MEMORY IN ANIMALS).

FAN claims these and similar studies as irrefutable evidence that CWF is harmful – particularly in their major campaign claiming CWF lowers IQ and should be stopped. However, a more scientific assessment is far less dogmatic.

The US National Toxicity Program (NTP) examined published research of potential neurological effects from fluoride exposures in experimental rodent animals in a systematic review published in 2016 (see Systematic literature review on the effects of fluoride on learning and memory in animal studies). They found many of the studies had limitations due to confounding in the learning and memory assessments and there was a lack of discrimination between motor and learning skills. Very few of the studies were made at drinking water concentrations relevant to CWF and the evidence for adverse effects was “low to moderate,” and weakest for animals during their developmental phase.

The NTP concluded further research was needed and undertook laboratory studies with rodents to fill the research gaps it had identified. Those studies are now complete and have been published in a research paper:

McPherson, C. A., Zhang, G., Gilliam, R., Brar, S. S., Wilson, R., Brix, A., … Harry, G. J. (2018). An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Following Fluoride Exposure from Gestational Through Adult Ages in Long-Evans Hooded Rats. Neurotoxicity Research. Neurotoxicity Research.

The laboratory experiment

The authors used four treatments for the rats:

  • G1: Fed standard rodent chow;
  • G2: Fed low-fluoride chow;
  • G3: Fed low-fluoride chow + drinking water with 10 ppm F;
  • G4 Fed low-fluoride chow + drinking water with 20 ppm F.

Effects of drinking water F were determined by comparing results for G3 and G4 with G2.

The drinking water fluoride concentrations still seem high (compared with the recommended level of 0.75 ppm for CWF) but are lower than used in most earlier studies (often around 100 ppm). However, the basis for these choices was the use of the US secondary drinking water standard (2 ppm) and US UPA maximum contaminant level (4 ppm) and “the conventional wisdom that a 5-fold increase in dose is required to achieve comparable human serum levels.” However, this “wisdom” is debated as blood serum levels fluctuate.

These drinking water concentrations are still far higher than the recommended optimum level for CWF (0.75 ppm) so the results should be seen as more related to the defined upper limits than to CWF itself.

Behavioural assessments

A range of behavioural assessments was made. These included:

“motor, sensory, or learning and memory performance on running wheel, open-field activity, light/dark place preference, elevated plus maze, pre-pulse startle inhibition, passive avoidance, hot-plate latency, Morris water maze acquisition, probe test, reversal learning, and Y-maze.”

The purpose of using such a wide range was to overcome deficiencies of the measurements made in earlier studies and to fill in gaps. Animals at the developmental stage were included as most earlier studies had been made with adult rats.

“No significant differences observed”

One of the most commonly used phrases in this paper as the results are presented and discussed is that there were “no significant differences observed across groups.”

The authors note in their abstract that they “observed no exposure-related differences” in any of the behavioural tests listed above.

This result is important. The study is authoritative. The chosen experimental protocols resulted from an extensive systematic review of the earlier work which identified gaps and deficiencies. A very wide range of behavioural tests was used. And the experimental plans were discussed very widely before the experiments began.

We can conclude, therefore, that rodent experiments are unlikely to show behavioural effects related to fluoride exposure at the concentrations which, the authors argue, are relevant to the recommended maximum drinking water standard (2 ppm) and maximum contaminant level (4 ppm) for humans. The argument that this result is relevant to humans is strengthened by the possibility that ““the conventional wisdom that a 5-fold increase in dose is required” to make results relevant for humans may be inflated.

The argument is further strengthened for humans as the recommended drinking water fluoride concentrations for humans is even lower than the maximum drinking water standard and the maximum contaminant level.

Other assessments

The researchers also analysed thyroid hormones and examined collected tissues. They reported:

“No exposure-related pathology was observed in the heart, liver, kidney, testes, seminal vesicles, or epididymides.”

And:

No evidence of neuronal death or glial activation was observed in the hippocampus at 20 ppm F.”

In fact, the only statistically significant effects they found were a “mild inflammation in the prostate gland” and “evidence of mild fluorosis in adults” at 20 ppm F (treatment G4). Remember this level corresponds to the maximum contaminant level for humans and dental fluorosis has also been reported for humans at that concentration.

The anti-fluoride spin

Several years ago I discussed the planned NTP work and the reaction of anti-fluoride campaigners to it in my article Fluoride and IQ – another study coming up.

These campaigners seemed ecstatic about the planned NTP work, although I did comment:

“You wouldn’t think the anti-fluoride crowd would welcome such a careful analysis of the poor-quality articles they promote”

However, Fluoride Free NZ revealed the spin they placed on the NTP document describing the systematic review and the planned work in their press release at the time (see Fluoride-Brain Studies Set to Expose Fluoridation Damage):

“Results could mean the end to fluoridation world-wide, and definitely should put a halt to any plans to start fluoridation in places not currently fluoridated.

Because it is now well established that fluoride affects the brain, the NTP plans to conduct new animal studies to determine the lowest dose at which this damage occurs. They also plan to do a systematic review of all the existing scientific literature. To date, there have been 314 studies that have investigated fluoride’s effects on the brain and nervous system. These include 181 animal studies, 112 human studies, and 21 cell studies.”

I commented on this:

“The confirmation bias and dogmatic agenda stick out like a sore thumb – don’t expect these people to accurately report this study’s findings.”

Well, it seems that these campaigners are still stuck in dumb shock of the denial phase as they have yet to make any comment on these research results. When they do get around to overcoming their speechlessness they are going to be hard put to reconcile this denial with their earlier hopes for the research findings.

There is no way this study can be used to argue for “the end to fluoridation worldwide” or that there “definitely should” be “a halt to any plans to start fluoridation in places not currently fluoridated.

Similar articles