Search Results for: Book review

Cochrane fluoridation review. II: “Biased” and poor quality research?

Here again, the language used in the Cochrane review (Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries) is very misleading. Especially when cherry-picked and taken out of context. The word “bias” used in the review does not have the meaning … Continue reading

Cochrane fluoridation review. I: Most research ignored

With the publication of the new Cochrane Fluoridation Review (Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries) we have, once again,  both fluoridation supporters and opponents claiming it as evidence for their contradictory positions. They surely both cannot be right. … Continue reading

Misrepresentation of the new Cochrane fluoridation review

A new fluoridation review was published this week – Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries from the Cochrane Oral Health Group. It’s main message is: “Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in … 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

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

NZ Fluoridation review – Response to Micklen

I welcome open and transparent discussion here so am thankful to Dr Micklen for his response (see NZ Fluoridation review – HS Micklen responds to critique). Unfortunately he is the only author or “peer-reviewer” of Fluoride Free NZ’s report criticising the NZ Fluoridation … Continue reading

Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits – now peer reviewed

Last May I raised the possibility that the much touted relationship of small IQ declines for children living in areas with naturally high fluoride in drinking water could be associated with severe dental fluorosis and not a chemical neurotoxicant (see Confirmation blindness … Continue reading

Anti-fluoridation propagandists promoting shonky “review”

The anti-fluoridation internet propaganda machine is currently promoting a shonky paper – partly in their attempts to discredit the Royal Society of NZ Review. The substitute they offer was promoted  by them earlier this years and is being recycled. So I … Continue reading

Peer review of an anti-fluoride “peer review”

In  Anti-fluoride activists define kangaroo court as “independent” I promised to review the anti-fluoridationist “International Peer Review.” This is Anti-fluoride  critique of the recent review Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence produced by the Royal Society of NZ together with the Office … Continue reading