Do New Zealanders no longer support Ukraine?

Of a possible 55 heads of state, only four made time to join a virtual address delivered by the African Union Assembly on June 20 by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Source: Ghana Web

So Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is to address the NZ Parliament next Wednesday. The address will be outside business hours (I will be interested to see how many MPs turn up) but it will please our Prime Minister, Jacinda Adern, who has pushed hard to get this address. As she sees it:

“This address is a valuable opportunity to reiterate our support for Ukraine directly to President Zelenskyy and hear from him what the international community can do to continue to support its people, and its sovereignty.”

But the New Zealand people don’t appear to share the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for Zelensky. Just look at the negative comments this news received on the Twitter announcements of the address by the NZ Herald, News Hub Politics, and 1News NZ.

Ukrainian flags were everywhere 9 months ago. Twitter activists used them in their comments.

 

Gone are those Twitter activists from 9 months ago who proudly virtue-signalled their support for Ukraine and hatred for Russia. They seemed to be everywhere. Nowadays such enthusiastic supporters are few and far between. The mood is quite the opposite.

There is an occasional “Slava Ukraini!” But the vast majority of comments are hostile to this address. Comments raise issues of the corruption in Ukraine, Zelensky’s personal corruption, his attitude of entitlement and his insistent demands for money and weapons, and his support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the FT’s person of the year 2022. The 44-year-old has earnt a place in history for his extraordinary display of leadership and fortitude https://t.co/Rxsl03pzS8 pic.twitter.com/ibp52B4N66

— Financial Times (@FinancialTimes) December 5, 2022

This surprises me as I expected that New Zealanders had blindly accepted the government’s position on Ukraine. Even accepting New Zealand’s UN vote against a resolution condemning the glorification of Nazis and racism (see Is New Zealand covertly supporting the glorification of neo-Nazism?). Western Governments and media have competed in glorifying Zelensky as a brave and charismatic leader. The Financial Times even listed him as their Person of the Year.

Has the person on the street resisted all this pressure and come to their own mind about Zelensky?

I realise that Twitter commenters can be unrepresentative because they tend to congregate according to their biases. But these comments were on news media Twitter posts, so I expect them to be more representative. Maybe Elon Musk has somehow changed the composition of Twitter commenters, but I doubt it.

 

Have more and more ordinary New Zealanders resisted the media and government pressures to conform over Ukraine and the war in  Ukraine? Are more and more New Zealanders now thinking for themselves.

 

I think the more politically conscious amongst us have learned things about Ukraine and the causes of the war that they weren’t conscious of 9 months ago. The enthusiastic, but unthinking, support from Ukraine has dissipated. We have become more aware of the real nature of Ukrainian society and its recent history. We have become conscious of the 2014 coup which overthrew a democratically elected government. We now know now about the widespread influence of ultranationalists and neo-Nazis in society and in the military national battalions (see The subtlety of neo-Nazi influence in Ukraine – ignored by our media).

Whatever the reason I welcome this trend. A society blindly led by the government and media as happened 9 months ago is dangerous.

 

 

The 52 IQ studies used by anti-fluoride campaigners

Slide number 30 from Paul Connett presentation prepared for a talk at NZ Parliament buildings in February 2018.

Continuing my critique of the presentation prepared by Paul Connett for his much-publicised meeting at Parliament Building in February. The meeting attracted only three MPs but his presentation is useful as it presents all the arguments anti-fluoride campaigners rely on at the moment.

My previous articles on this presentation are Anti-fluoride activist commits “Death by PowerPoint” and Paul Connett’s misrepresentation of maternal F exposure study debunked.

In this article, I deal with the argument presented in the slide above. it is an argument repeated again and again by activists. Connett has posted a more detailed list of these studies and his description of them in Fluoride & IQ: The 52 Studiesat the Fluoride Action Network website.

Studies in areas of endemic fluorosis

All the 52 studies comment refers to are from regions of endemic fluorosis in countries like India, China, Mexico and Iran where dietary fluoride intake is above the recommended maximum level. People in these areas suffer a range of health problems and studies show cognitive deficits as one of them. However, a quick survey of Google Scholar shows this concern is well down the list (See Endemic fluorosis and its health effects). Only 5% of the Google Scholar hits related to health effects of endemic fluorosis considered IQ effects.

People in high fluoride areas where fluorosis is endemic suffer a range of health problems. Credit: Xiang (2014)

In, most, but not all, cases the major source of fluoride in the diet is drinking water with high fluoride levels (above the WHO recommended 1.5 mg/L). Paul Connett’s logic is simply to extrapolate to low drinking water fluoride concentrations typical of community water fluoridation (CWF). However, we do not see the other health effects like severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, etc., where CWF is used.

His logic also ignores the possibility that cognitive deficits may result from other health problems common in areas of endemic fluorosis. Problems such as premature births and low birth weight, skeletal fluorosis or even the psychological effect of unsightly teeth due to severe dental fluorosis.

Comparing “high” fluoride villages with “low” fluoride villages

This approach is simplistic as it simply compares a population suffering fluorosis with another population not. Yes, the underlying problem is the high dietary intake (mainly from drinking water) in the high fluoride villages – but that does not prove fluoride in drinking water is the direct cause of a problem. The examples discussed above, eg., low birth weights or premature births, could be the direct cause.

It is easy to show statistically significant differences of drinking water fluoride and a whole host of fluorosis related diseases between two villages but that, in itself, does not prove that drinking water fluoride is the direct cause. Nor does it justify extrapolating such results to other low concentrations situations typical of CWF.

Paul Connett’s logic ignores the fact that in most of these studies the “low” fluoride villages (which the studies were treating as the control or normal situations where IQ deficits did not occur) had drinking water fluoride concentrations like that used in CWF. It also ignores, or unjustly attempts to dismiss) studies which show no cognitive deficits related to CWF.

A low fluoride concentration study showing an IQ effect

After making a big thing about the large numbers of studies and being challenged by the high fluoride concentrations involved Connett normally goes into a “yes, but” mode and attempts to transfer that credibility of “large numbers” to the very few studies which report effects at low fluoride concentrations.

He usually makes a big thing of the study by Lin et al (1991):

Lin Fa-Fu, Aihaiti, Zhao Hong-Xin, Lin Jin, Jiang Ji-Yong, M. (1991). THE RELATIONSHIP OF A LOW-IODINE AND HIGH- FLUORIDE .ENVIRONMENT TO SUBCLINICAL CRETINISM lN XINJIANG. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter, 24–25.

Connett claims this study shows a lower IQ when the drinking water F concentration was 0.88 ppm, but the areas suffered from iodine deficiency which is related to cognitive deficits.

The study I reviewed recent by Bashash et al (2017) (see Paul Connett’s misrepresentation of maternal F exposure study debunked) is also on Connett’s list. He doesn’t mention, however, that while an association of child IQ with prenatal maternal urinary fluoride was reported the paper also reported there was no observed association of child IQ with child urinary fluoride concentrations.

Studies not showing an effect

Connett lists 7 studies which showed no effect on IQ. One of these was the well-known Broadbent et al., (2014) study from New Zealand, which he, of course, proceeds to debunk in an irrational and not very truthful manner.

He does not mention the studies from Canada (Barberio et al. 2017 ) and Sweden (Aggeborn & Öhman 2016) which also show no effect of CWF on IQ.

The 6 other studies listed are all Chinese, and not translated. Interesting because Connett’s Fluoride Action Network invested money and time into translating obscure Chinese papers that could support their argument of harm. They obviously did not bother translating those papers which did not confirm their bias.

Conclusion

So, Connett’s 52 studies are rather a waste of time. Based in areas of endemic fluorosis their findings are not transferable to areas where CWF is used. The quality of most papers is low and, usually, the studies are simply a comparison of two villages, one where fluorosis is endemic and the “control” village where it isn’t but drinking water concentrations are like that used in CWF.

Connett simply is not able to properly evaluate, or in some cases even consider, studies which show no effect of fluoride on IQ or were made in areas where CWF exists and no effects are shown.

Similar articles

 

Fluoridation: members of parliament call from submissions from scientific and health experts

The new community water fluoridation legislation is now on the way in the New Zealand parliament. The Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill was introduced on Tuesday and the parliamentary health committee has invited submissions.

It’s worth watching the videos of the twelve speakers in the first reading. These give an idea of how the legislation will be received by the different political parties. They also give an impression that members of our parliament are well aware of the tactics of the anti-fluoride pressure groups – they fully expect to be inundated with irrelevant and pseudoscientific submissions. But they are also aware that the science currently finds community water fluoridation to be both effective and safe.

After watching the debate these are my initial conclusions:

1. The bill has almost unanimous support. Only New Zealand First voted against it.
2. Many of the speakers see the legislation as only a little better than the current situation. The describe it as a half-way house – kicking the can down the road. District Health Boards (DHBs) will be subjected to the same uninformed or misleading pressure that the councils are at present. The government should have gone the whole hog and handed over responsibility for fluoridation decision to the Ministry of Health.
3. All the speakers declared their support for the science that shows community water fluoridation effective and safe. Most showed they are aware of, and accept, the New Zealand Fluoridation review commissioned by the Royal Society of New Zealand and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.
4. None of the speakers showed any support for the arguments or activities of anti-fluoridation campaigners. In fact, there were many derogatory comments made about tin foil hats, etc.
5. New Zealand First is opposed because they prefer that communities make fluoridation decisions by referenda and are calling for these referenda to be binding. They criticised those councils like Whakatane and Hamilton that had ignored the wishes of the community.

Health Committee calling for submissions

The Parliamentary health select committee has called for submissions on the bill. Written submission will be accepted until February 2, 2017.

Information on making a submission is available on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill website. And you can make your submissions online.

You can also give notice that you wish to make an oral submission to the Health Committee.

Possible issues of contention

From what speakers in the debate had to say I do not think the anti-fluoride lobby will get much sympathy. MPs are expecting the usual deluge of submissions from them but know from experience how worthless they will be.

However, several MPs stressed they did welcome submissions and particularly encouraged submissions from scientific and health experts. The Royal Society of NZ and the Prime Minster’s Chief Scientific advisor may be specifically invited to make submissions.

The bill is not really about the science, however, and MPs expect that the real content – the processes for making fluoridation decisions and the body responsible for these, should be thoroughly discussed.

I expect there will be a strong push to strengthen the bill by moving responsibility to central government, the Ministry of Health, as MPs still see problems with DHB responsibility.

The issue of community consultation should also come up – particularly as New Zealand First is promoting the idea of binding referenda in communities. As it stands the bill does not define how consultation should occur so this may well be made more specific.

The Green Party seems keen to introduce mechanisms for better informing of the public about the science behind fluoridation. They are conscious that the anti-fluoride groups are fear-mongering on this issue and feel that this can be countered by better information. If this is discussed in depth in the hearings there may well be some interest in defining more specifically how government updates its understanding of the research on fluoridation and how they disseminate new research results to the public.

A role for you, the reader

Well, the process is underway. If you have views or concerns on the bill or on the decision processes involved with fluoridation now is the time to put pen to paper, punch away on your computer keyboard, or prepare for making an oral submission to the health committee. If you want advice on how to do this have a read of Making a Submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee and the linked documents.

Remember, written submissions are accepted until February 2, 2017, and we would expect the Health committee hearings to start soon after that.

Similar articles

Drifting moral values

Last night the New Zealand Parliament overwhelmingly voted to go ahead with the marriage Equality Bill. A common comment is that it’s time had come. It would have not been possible 10 years ago.

Is this just an example of moral relativism, laws and rules being decided by what is fashionable? By our current whims and fancies? The situation which is supposed to result from subjective morality.

Or does it illustrate progress? Are we getting better at deciding what is truly “right” or “wrong?” This implies that there are some sort of objective standards – an objective basis for human morality.

I argue for the second position – you can see that from my earlier posts “Objective or subjective laws and lawgivers“ and “Subjective morality – not what it seems?” This is like Matt Dillahunty‘s argument – “If it was wrong then, it is wrong now.” If we decide today that marriage equality is morally right, then it was also right 10 years ago when we didn’t recognise that.

Slavery, racism, discrimination on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation may have been socially acceptable in the past. We may have believed them to be OK morally. But they were still morally wrong. Marriage inequality was socially acceptable 10 years ago, but it was still morally wrong.

Human morality based on evolved biological value

I say that because I think there is an objective basis to human morality. At least on some issues, we can say there is a “correct” moral decision – even if society doesn’t see it. That “correct” position does not depend on popular vote, fashion, or the whims and fancies of a leaders, society, a divine “lawmaker” or a god.

In “Subjective morality – not what it seems?”  I briefly outlined an objective basis for human morality derived from evolved biological value. I won’t develop that further here, although I recognise some people find it controversial. But if there is an objective basis for human morality why do we see the differences we do between different societies and cultures? Why do we see this moral drift within our own society? Despite an objective basis in our evolved biology our moral decisions can differ over time and place. What drives these differences?

I also compared our moral system to a modern camera in the last post. Most people in most situations use their moral camera in the “auto mode”. It’s far more efficient to rely on feelings, emotions and our reaction to them than to consult our “holy books” or carry out a logical consideration for each moral situation we face. We would have gone extinct long ago if that was the way we worked.

Using the “manual” mode

However, we do sometimes use the manual mode – that’s what happened in Parliament last night. The manual mode is necessary when we rehearse moral arguments, consider new ethical situations, deliberate on ethical rules and laws. As the caption to the photo of Joshua Greene in the last post says our automatic ethical responses just “may not be effective in handling modern moral problems such as global warming.”

Mind you we are more a rationalising species than a rational one. An individual considering their response to a moral situation is not necessarily using good or unmotivated logic. They rarely are. In fact modern research suggests that inevitably our feelings and emotions are involved in our apparently reasoning, logical considerations. So the manual mode is far from perfect (and admit it, how often do you make mistakes when you use your camera’s manual mode).

We don’t always get it right.

Reasoned consideration of ethical situations works better when more than one person is involved. Rationalisations are more likely to be noticed. Diverse opinions can be represented. But there is still no guarantee that it results in the “correct” moral decisions determined by the objectively based nature of our values and the situation being considered. I think, though, like scientific knowledge it is something that improves with time and experience. Society can recognise the mistakes of the past, correct them and learn from them.

Another reason is that our human nature is complex. We may have an inbuilt tendency to empathy and the golden rule, but we also have inbuilt tendencies to violence, and to a tribal “them vs us” mindset.  We are a complex species, our interactions with other humans, and with members of other species is also complex. We are not always going to make the “correct” ethical decision – even when we think we have applied careful reasoning and involved multiple viewpoints. There is always the option of in future correcting our mistakes of the past.

Effectively the NZ parliaments was doing that last night. It was recognising that previous marriage legislation had problems and that the Civil Unions Act they passed 8 years ago had still not resolved all of them.

On the whole, I think our drifting moral values indicates progress and not moral relativism.

---

In my next post on this subject I will discus how deliberate and intentional use of our moral camera in the manual mode can also adjust the auto mode. And even if you never use the manual mode you might find that your auto mode tends to update itself.

Similar articles