I didn’t intend to write another post on this subject so soon after the last one, but a story on yahoo.com’s news feed has really annoyed me. I know journalists these days are seriously under pressure, but that doesn’t really justify taking a ‘press release’ from a known activist organisation and running it uncritically ie without actually looking into any of the claims made therein. You’ll find the story here, & I’m going to comment on some of the claims it contains below. (I would have done it directly on the yahoo.com piece but they don’t actually allow comments, grumble grumble mutter.)
Dr Paul Connett is currently visiting NZ and Australia to promote the views of the anti-fluoridation organisation FAN and its antipodean sub-groups. While he has reportedly spent 17 years ‘researching’ issues associated with community water fluoridation (CWF), he has published neither original research papers on this particular topic nor a systematic review of the existing scientific literature, in leading science journals. He has, however, published a book on the subject, the contents of which formed the basis of an extensive discussion on the Open Parachute science blog (also syndicated to the Science Media Centre’s sciblogs.co.nz). This output doesn’t really justify the ‘expert’ description so adroitly promoted by the FANNZ spokesperson who provided the yahoo item.
Repeated calls for a ‘debate’ are rather misleading as they suggest that there is in fact something to debate. In the case of the science behind CWF, as Sir Peter Gluckman has said, it is effectively settled. To call for a debate is simply an attempt to sow doubt and fear in people’s minds, and any such event would be ‘won’ by the better demagogue and not necessarily on the basis of the actual science presented. Thus it makes perfect sense for TV3 to seek comment from Dr Jonathan Broadbent, who has a solid research record around oral health, rather than to opt for the flawed ‘debate’ format & so give some feeling of false equivalency to an issue where none exists.
The FANNZ claim that our health officials are “[advocating] a highly toxic chemical be added to the drinking water of over 2 million people” is an attempt to imply that this practice is doing harm. However, there is no good evidence that the fluoridated water coming from the taps actually causes significant adverse health effects. Nor have health officicals “gone into hiding” (as stated in the yahoo story), as Dr Broadbent’s willingness to be interviewed clearly demonstrates,
What are the facts that FANNZ is so keen for New Zealanders to hear? The organisation certainly seems keen to obscure the evidence that community water fluoridation improves oral health (here, here, and here, for example) and is a cost-effective way of doing so. The spokesperson comments that it “is [health officials’] responsibility to provide people with real factual information” – and appears to be ignoring the fact that the National Fluoride Information Service has been set up to do just that. And just today dental health experts have provided commentary on fluoridation via the Science Media Centre.
As I’ve said, many large-scale systematic reviews have found that there is good evidence that ingesting fluoride reduces decay – and, contrary to the claim in the original press release – the evidence of “unacceptable health risks” is not “growing daily”. For example, the claim that fluoride is implicated in development of osteosarcoma appears to be based on a single preliminary study, and is not supported by more recent large-scale analyses. Similarly the ‘Harvard’ review, often cited as evidence that fluoridation affects IQ, has a number of flaws, some of which were identified by the authors themselves.
Yahoo.com, it’s a real pity you didn’t look into this one rather more deeply.
Allan says:
Who pays your wages to write this stuff? If your so sure of yourself then please drink all the fluoride you like along with mine as a right I have the right to not be forced to drink the stuff. I refuse to be someones medical experiment. This sounds very motivated by someones agenda not common scene .
Joel says:
My goodness. Luckily this is an opinion blog – no need to quote any science. Good luck with that.
Alison Campbell says:
Did you drive by & comment without reading, Joel? There are a number of links to the supporting scientific papers, in my post. What particular points do you disagree with?
Alison Campbell says:
Ah, the pharma shill gambit. Nobody pays me to write my blog. You are not being part of some ‘medical experiment’; there is good evidence of benefits to the population from community water fluoridation. The same cannot be said for the many claims of harm at the levels used in town water supplies.
Daniel Ryan says:
To the anti-fluoride guys, lets stick with the issue and not insult Alison thanks.
Allan says:
Maybe you want to look at how 1080 is made its one of the top 5 weapons of mass murder the white House has on its list. 1080 is made from Fluoride, tell me are you up to drinking water with 1080 in it?
As for your links they are nothing more than PR and Propaganda of the toxic waste industry that cost $7k a ton to dump.
Alison Campbell says:
its one of the top 5 weapons of mass murder the white House has on its list. Citation, please.
1080 contains fluoride, yes. That doesn’t mean that the fluoride is necessarily what makes it toxic. I’ve seen the same argument advanced using sarin ie ‘fluoride is in sarin & sarin is deadly, therefore fluoride is also deadly’. In fact it’s the organophosphate part of sarin that does the damage.
1080 also occurs naturally in tea.
While 1080 is definitely highly toxic to humans, that needs to be put into perspective: we’d need to eat at least 100g of carrot baits (which are dyed bright green, so there’s not much chance of mistaking them for normal carrots), or eat at least 37kg of meat from a sheep that died of 1080 poisoning, or drink at least 5,000 litres of water from a heavily contaminated waterway (all at once, as otherwise it would be excreted before it could reach toxic levels in the body).
Regarding your comment on the scientific papers I’ve linked to – do you really, seriously, think that the fertiliser industry could possibly buy the opinion of every single scientist who has ever done any work on fluoride, and get them to keep quiet on what they really know? Because that’s what your claim implies. You should also consider the fact that there are a number of other, industrial, uses for HFSA, so it’s not as if the industry is short of ways to use/dispose of it.
And toxic? Anything is ‘toxic’ in the wrong quantities, including the water you drink & the oxygen you breathe.
sarah says:
What is the good evidence that fluoride helps teeth Alison?? if you do your research ( which I don’t think you have) all western countries have seen a decrease in tooth decay, including the ones that haven’t fluoridated their water!! explain that Alison.
SARAH says:
So what about the scientists who agree fluoride can cause harm??
Also, what about people who are sensitive to fluoride… they are forced to drink water or foods made with that water and it can harm them.
Another point you seem to miss is that food that is made with the fluoridated water will also fill us with fluoride and it enters our blood stream.
Alison Campbell says:
They have, but things are a little more complex than you suggest. For example, Scotland has introduced teeth-brushing schemes into schools, plus kids there get a veneer of fluoride on their teeth on an annual basis. There are also other confounders – England, for example, is moving to add fluoride to milk; fluoridated salt is available in much of Germany. The data, from NZ and elsewhere, still indicate a clear benefit to fluoride; I’ve linked to some of those papers in this post.
Alison Campbell says:
This is something of a bait & switch, Sarah, in that you’re asking questions outside the reach of this particular blog post. If you’d like me to address your points, then you should be providing citations in support of your first 2 points. (Considering fluoride is ubiquitous in our environment then it would be good to see a good-quality study or studies that support the claim of sensitivity.)
I don’t ‘miss’ your last point (again, it was outside the reach of my post), and my colleagues in Chemistry have done the calculations for just how much someone would have to eat & drink every single day in order to achieve a chronic dose large enough to do actual harm.
Assuming an average 50% water content in food (water content varies from one food to another) and an average daily intake of 2.13 kg wet weight of food (USDA figures for average Americans so possibly a little high); at 50% water that is 1.06 kg dry weight food/day. On this diet an individual would have to ingest 21.3 mg of fluoride from their food daily in order to experience chronic fluorosis.
At the levels that fluoride is present in drinking water that has been fluoridated by the municipal authorities (0.7 -1 ppm, that is a maximum of 1 mg/Litre) this would require the individual to consume 21.3 Litres of water per day before the advent of chronic fluorosis.
Cressey et al. (Journal of Public Health Dentistry 70 (2010) 327–336) in a study of New Zealanders have estimated that the mean highest daily fluoride intake in any age group from both diet and municipally fluoridated water combined is 2.1 mg/day, approximately 1/10th of the dose required to cause the advent of chronic fluorosis.
SARAH says:
But how do you know that the amount of fluoride we consume in a week doesn’t cause other health problems apart from fluorosis??
Also, Why can’t we just apply fluoride toothpaste
if we want healthy teeth instead or consuming it when there is no proof that ingesting it will actually benefit the teeth. Scientist have found that consuming fluoride through water will not be able to straighten the teeth from within as once believed. I appreciate that you are willing to debate the topic but you sound a little biased.
sarah says:
Fluoride is ubiquitous to our environment… the natural fluoride not the chemical version extracted from chemical waste. Can you prove that the chemical fluoride is just as safe as the natural fluoride?
sarah says:
Also is the tiny tiny benefit you describe founded off dodgy statistics really worth risking the health of people because there is no such solid evidence that fluoride is safe yet there are many doctors and scientist who have very clear evidence that it can harmful to human health if we consume the amount we would normally in every day life. Why gamble with lives to maybe save a few teeth who can easily just use toothpaste and cut down on alcohol and sugar??. It is against the law to force this form of medication on every body without their consent.
sarah says:
Switzerland, Finland and Denmark fro example do not add fluoride to water or salt and tooth decay has decreased significantly as well. Comment on this Alison
Mischele Rhodes says:
Alison -why is it that you and the Chemistry dept. do not understand that fluoride is a cumulative poison – and that hydrofluorosilicic acid -the fluoride dumped in our drinking water is a hazardous toxic waste forced upon people who don’t want to drink it ?
The science is not settled- in fact the science overwhelmingly points that fluoridation causes harm. I don’t have much faith in Prof. Gluckman – all you get from the MOH & DHB’s is “spin” -I’ve sat in on many fluoridation debates, discussions with a variety of Councils where DHB reps. have presented and with Dr Connett from FAN present at some. He runs “rings” around these so-called health representatives and quite honestly the health authorities and their “science” don’t stack up. The fluoride deception is a house of falling cards. If the science faculty of the Waikato University cared so much about fluoride in the water where were they all when Hamilton City Council held their 4 day Fluoride Tribunal to present their “science”? Why come out with letters to the Editor and comments in social media after the event ? Fluoride Action Network NZ are unpaid volunteers who care about the health of New Zealanders who are medicated with a toxic waste without their informed consent. 1080 poison is another toxic fluoride product condoned by government. This product can be ingested by birds, possum, rats and insects and causes a slow and excruciating death – so the govt. and DOC, AHB condone animal cruelty.
Alison -don’t you get a picture that this country and its governing body are just in the business of poisoning our people and animals etc ? Not a pretty picture.
How do we keep everyone happy ? – health authorities ought to be educating oral healthcare and funding toothpaste and brushes to lower income families – simple.
And lastly having two sons born in Hamilton (as you know) sadly present with fluorosis and no health authority has come to their aid to remedy their affliction. What about their bones – can the science faculty help us with a remedy – will they have arthritis, cancer, thyroid problems and so on in the future because fluorides are enzyme poisoners ? another fact is – no biological process in the body needs fluoride.
People want choice and I think we deserve it.
Alison Campbell says:
Please provide evidence in support of your statement that the stats are ‘dodgy’. Also I have yet to see good-quality evidence that fluoride at the concentrations used in CWF in NZ is ‘harmful to human health’. The claims around osteosarcoma, for example, don’t stack up.
If you consider the F- ion to be medication then logically we’d also need a prescription to breathe oxygen.
Alison Campbell says:
Comment on this Alison
I already did – in high-income societies where everyone has access to good dental hygiene & care, you’d expect to see a decline anyway.
Alison Campbell says:
The fluoride ion is just that, regardless of its source. the natural fluoride not the chemical version – this is a false distinction as both are ‘chemicals’.
Alison Campbell says:
Mischele:
the fluoride dumped in our drinking water is a hazardous toxic waste – what you’ve neglected to add is that concentration is key. As I’m sure you know very well, because it’s been pointed out in many different forums, HFSA dissociates fully to hydrogen ions, silica, & fluoride ions at the neutral pH at which drinking water is supplied.
If you have good-quality peer-reviewed scientific evidence, published in mainstream science journals (ie not Fluoride or fluoridealert) then please feel free to present it. The onus is on you, who are making the claims of harm, to produce evidence in support.
Dr Connett is a very skilled debater. This does not mean that his points are necessarily correct, just that he’s good at presenting them. Why would you expect DHB staff to have similar skills?
1080 poison is another toxic fluoride product – this is a bait&switch; it also suggests that you haven’t read my response to a previous commenter. F is present – as a single ion – in a molecule of 1080. However, it is the organophosphate part of that molecule that does the damage. If you have a better means of protecting our native plants and animals from the depredations of possums, rats etc then by all means put it forward.
I would be happy to support you in putting forward a motion to central government to support good oral health, particularly in lower income families (although dental caries is not limited to that cohort).
Grant says:
Mischele Rhodes,
“why is it that you and the Chemistry dept. do not understand”
Why is it that the crowd at ‘Fluoride Free Hamilton NZ’ seem to think they know better than chemists and biologists, yet are not chemists or biologists?
Don’t get me wrong, I mean this as a serious question. A few years ago I wrote piece titled ‘Medical DIY’; you can read it here:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/03/18/medical-diy/
Please do read it, it’s not long. One key problem with this fluoride ‘debate’ is that people think that they can speak better than those who actually work on chemistry, public health and safety.
All the major health organisations (WHO, FDA, national organisations) support use of it within set guidelines. These organisations are very conservative, they’re very cautious about things that might cause harm.
I generally don’t get involved in this ‘debate’ as I haven’t time to cover all the elements of it but a word on your claim that “fluorides are enzyme poisoners”. Fluorides also can promote enzyme activity, too – fluorides can act both ways depending on the enzyme. Perhaps think about why you have been told only one side of a two-sided story?; it’s worth wondering why.
(One ‘side’ does ‘fit’ what those who campaign against water fluorination might ‘like’ to be true, but that’s fitting things to what they think is true and leaving out the full picture. Even calling out that fluorides can act as inhibitors is besides the point without a lot more information; that something can act as an inhibitor in itself isn’t that meaningful. You might also wonder why a scare word—‘poisoners’—is used rather than the correct word, ‘inhibitors’.)
One last thought: the views at ‘Fluoride Free Hamilton NZ’ about Alison’s posts read more like a hate campaign—with personal attacks and so on—than a discussion of an issue. Some of the things said there are awful. If not sick they are certainly thoughtless and suggest the group is focused on being aggressive at people rather than looking at the evidence on the subject. Just as an exercise, try swopping Connett’s name for Alison’s and see how you feel about what is written there. I find this swopping of name a useful trick – it might help you to see if the comment actually saying anything about the _topic_, or just trying to slur.
Hayden says:
Alison, Firstly: if the science is effectively settled, how about you come and present that science in an open forum. The statements that “science isn’t decided by debate” is simply a diversionary tactic because you don’t have the science on your side to support you. To reiterate, if the science is effectively settled as you claim, then all you need to do is present the existing science and don’t need to debate anything. The reason you don’t want to present it, is because someone highly knowledgeable on the subject will be calling BS to your misrepresentations in real time.
Secondly: The statement “If you consider the F- ion to be medication then logically we’d also need a prescription to breathe oxygen.” qualifies as an F minus for deductive reasoning skills. However it does make a clear statement that you’re not qualified to comment on water fluoridation.
Alison Campbell says:
I’m guessing, Hayden (based on past experience from FB), that your version of an ‘open forum’ would be along the lines of Dr Connett’s presentation in Auckland, where the microphone was fairly firmly controlled and those wishing to put a pro-science point of view received quite a hostile reaction?
I am presenting the science in an open forum. Anyone can come along & interact as long as those interactions are polite.
My comment stands, Hayden. You are surely aware that F- is ubiquitous in the environment & in food and drink.
Grant says:
Just to back up Alison’s point about open forums, her posts appear both here and at sciblogs.co.nz; both are open forums. Mischele, Sarah and yourself free to write here after all.
Regards calling BS, any scientist could write here or at sciblogs. I know several chemists read sciblogs and at least two who write there. Knowing first-hand how scientists dislike errors, if they saw any major blunders they’d let Alison know!
(You might also notice that I wrote earlier responding to a claim Mischele Rhodes made – again, it’s an open forum.)
Your comment ‘advising’ Alison to write on the science suggests you’re not aware that she has in earlier posts. Perhaps you are unaware that she has other posts on this topic – ? Her previous post looks at fluoride-cancer link claims, for example. If you look back you’ll see others related to the topic over the year or thereabouts.
You also seem to have overlooked that she provided several links to sources examining the science.
Aside from how a debate is staged, one reason debates don’t resolve issues is that public debates are often, if not usually, dominated by showmanship as public debates are usually more about ‘winning the crowd over’ than the content. It’s why some of the best public debaters are literally showmen or actors like David McPhail or Jim Hopkins, to name just two.
Trevor Crosbie says:
I note that pro-fluoridation websites have denied Israel is stopping fluoridation – So what about this then? Israel’s Health Minister decided: will be discontinued fluoridation of drinking water
Yael German Health Minister signed a new water regulations – negate the fluoridation of drinking water in Israel. German resisted fluoridation even a mayor role. Eliminating fluoridation: in a year
Dr. Itay Gal Posted: 11:04:13, 13:45
Yael German Health Minister announced today (Thursday) that it has signed regulations that negate the duty of water fluoridation in Israel. Regulations pending legal officials in the Ministry of Health and take effect starting in 2014. The decision to put the end of a long debate on the subject between the various health factors in Israel.
Enter more updates to the Facebook page of the News
Alison Campbell says:
Israel hasn’t ‘banned’ fluoridation, Trevor – they have passed responsibility for this from the federal government to local councils, & making it non-mandatory. This is not a ‘disontinuation’. The following link is to a release on an anti-fluoridation site: http://www.ukcaf.org/israeli_court_did_not_ban_fluoridation.html
Mischele Rhodes says:
And still no pro-fluoridationist comes forward with an answer to the “elephant in the room” namely “fluorosis”. It’s an overdose so how does one remedy this health effect ?
Where is your proof of safety ? So can the Science Faculty of Waikato University prove its safety because the Waikato DHB cannot ?
Grant says:
Mischele Rhodes,
Regards fluorosis – a quick check of this page shows that Alison touched on this on February 6, 2014 7:37 PM.
Speaking of unanswered questions, I notice you haven’t answered mine, from my earlier comment addressed to you.
Also from my earlier comment, I take from your not making mention of it that you understand my explanation that the reference to ‘poisoning’ enzymes is misleading presented as it was – ?
Finally, why put labels on people? It’s just a way of framing ‘sides’ where they may not be any. In science (which I work in) there aren’t really sides in that way, there is different data and different arguments drawn from data, which you look to as a whole (i.e. taking it altogether) see what might be the case or not.
Alison Campbell says:
Mischele, this is a personal blog: I don’t speak for the Faculty.
Mischele Rhodes says:
As Prof. Paul Connett has stated many times is that no-one, not even a medical doctor can “control” the dose of hydrofluorosilicic acid when delivered through the public water supply. Alison – in your calculations there is no allowance for bathing in fluoridated water, someone on drugs such as Prozac, someone who has an operation needed anaesthetic (contains fluoride) and many more pharmaceutical drugs containing fluoride, cups of tea, fluoridated toothpaste etc. We are quite simply overdosed through ingestion and via the environment- cumulatively poisoned. So wouldn’t it be great that everyone -scientists and doctors and dentists just agreed that we have too many in our fluoridated areas suffering (yes suffering) from fluorosis and other health effects and let’s give up this outdated and dangerous practice ? Quite honestly I think scientists and all their facts forget about “being human”. You lamented about the fact on your Fluoride Q & A programme with others in the science faculty that why scientists have such a hard time from the public. I think this is because over time scientists have to rely on someone/organisation giving them a job and you have those who are pressured or willing to skew the data to the whims of the employer and incorrect data is published. Eventually they are found out and disgraced and hence the public find out and thus there is mis-trust of science.
Alison Campbell says:
Mischele, you may have missed the word ‘chronic’ in my previous comment.
Claims that bathing in fluoridated water is potentially dangerous require supporting evidence (again, the onus for extraordinary evidence is on those making the extraordinary claims). As has been repeatedly stated elsewhere, fluoridated toothpaste is only going to be an issue if people repeatedly, regularly ingest large quantities of the stuff.
Incidentally, each molecule of prozac contains 3 fluorine atoms (covalently bonded, so not fluoride); it is far from the main ingredient.
“you have those who are pressured or willing to skew the data to the whims of the employer” – this is the equivalent of the pharma shill gambit, which requires that an awful lot of people be paid off to keep quiet about things. Whereas, scientific fraud tends to be discovered and exposed by other scientists.
CWF has been in use in NZ for >50 years; evidence of harm at the concentrations used in municipal supply should be readily available by now.
Logan Nickles says:
I am anti-fluoride as I believe in the choice available to the people. I don’t believe in the conspiracies, and the only financial problem I had with this issue were two
– The cost to fluoridate water via taxpayer dollars
– The amount of money involved regarding skewing the vote in the referendum.
Now, the idea of a debate is for both sides to present evidence and use this to try and coerce their opponent/the people who wish to learn more. The DHB had far more money invested in their push for the referendum vote on fluoride. While this was not legally binding, this is a great example of the reverse occurring. The voting public are not well informed on the fluoride debate, and will naturally opt for the side supported by the DHB. I felt this was rather disappointing given the heated contention on the issue.
Where there is contention on the safety of anything, reviews and further case studies should be implemented immediately instead of continuing something that is potentially harmful. We have lead based paints, asbestos, aspartame and many other dangerous substances that were determined to be dangerous later in the investigation of health issues. The unfortunate difference is that if it is discovered or established that fluoridation is harmful, everyone will have had an ingested contact with it. It is simply not possible to avoid contact with fluoride if it is in the water source.
Thank-you for your patience and interest in this issue, Alison. It is nice to see a pro-fluoride argument that isn’t predicated on ‘THE DHB KNOWS EVERYTHING!’
Alison Campbell says:
Mischele, it’s also worth pointing out that bathing in fluoridated water at 0.7-0.8 ppm is far less ‘dangerous’ than swimming in the ocean where the concentration is 1.3-1.4 ppm. Should we have warning signs up at beaches?
Mischele Rhodes says:
CWF has never been monitored let alone studied in NZ – there is no evidence here if none is sought.
I personally know doctors who are aware through their patients the evidence of harm -especially cancer; specifically osteosarcoma in boys in this region and are alarmed as one specialist has never seen this in the overseas country this Dr. hails from.
Have you read Prof. Paul Connett’s book yet? It’s called “The Case Against Fluoride- How Hazardous Toxic Waste Ended Up in Drinking Water & The Powerful Politics & Bad Science That Keep It There”. From memory it was published 2010 and the 97 pages of referenced studies have not been refuted to this day. This is the evidence of harm. Also Declan Waugh an Environmental Scientist from Ireland has damning evidence of harm in his country.
Grant says:
Mischele Rhodes,
I notice that instead of acknowledging others’ point or replying to questions they have answered (you still haven’t answered mine) you trot out something new instead!
I’m not going to address all the claims you made in your last comment (there are too many and Alison has already replied to you), but I’d like to draw attention that you look to be repeating things others have said to, seemingly not realising that these statements are scare-mongering.
“As Prof. Paul Connett has stated many times”
The number of times someone says something doesn’t make it ‘more right’. (By the way Paul is a former professor; he is retired, he doesn’t hold that position now. You should at least be open to the possibility that because he once was a professor doesn’t mean what he says is right. It’s the evidence backing a claim that makes it right, not if the person saying it has a particular title or not.)
“not even a medical doctor can “control” the dose of hydrofluorosilicic acid when delivered through the public water supply”
Water supplies are not managed by “medical doctors”.
The scare-mongering here is distracting from the important point and implying a poison is “dosed” to people.
What is important is not that there is some variation in amounts, but if the variation can be kept within the recommended range.
The phrase “the dose of hydrofluorosilicic acid” is quite misleading and blatant scare-mongering. People are not ‘dosing’ the public with hydrofluorosilicic acid. I can sympathise that this must be confusing, but when hydrofluorosilicic acid is diluted into bulk water it breaks down.
“there is no allowance for bathing in fluoridated water”
You’re welcome to show evidence of notable amounts of fluorine entering the body via the skin, but others have suggested this isn’t the case.
“We are quite simply overdosed through ingestion and via the environment- cumulatively poisoned”
This looks like an empty scare-mongering claim that others have put to you and you are repeating. Is there evidence of large amounts accumulating in people?
“Quite honestly I think scientists and all their facts forget about “being human”.”
This strawman stereotype is often offered to try create ‘sides’, but it simply isn’t how most scientists are. Most medical scientists and human biologists got into their fields because they are interested in people and to try help people.
(It’s a bit of an irony, too, as Connett ought to be included in this stereotype, which perhaps illustrates how pointless it is. See also my earlier comments about ‘sides’.)
“I think this is because over time scientists have to rely on someone/organisation giving them a job and you have those who are pressured or willing to skew the data to the whims of the employer and incorrect data is published.”
Scare-mongering by calling on conspiracies or widespread incompetence rarely make sense.
University scientists are not pressured to any point of view and the suggestion that there is widespread pressured to commit academic fraud is silly – academic fraud is the fastest way to lose your career, not just in the institution you are in, but all you might try join later.
How would the ‘pressuring’ suggested to you happen?
Anyone who administers university staff will tell you how hard it is to ‘force’ university scientists to say particular things – scientists have this annoying independence and insistence on saying what they feel is right.
I’m sure someone else has put these to you and you are just repeating them, but why not think before repeating others’ claims like these?
Alison Campbell says:
I suggest you read my previous post on the claimed links between osteosarcoma and CWF.
You might also consider the following: that a large proportion of the references in Dr Connett’s book are duplicates, which rather reduces the size of that section; and that a reasonably large number are not references to scientific papers but to books, personal communications, newspaper and magazine articles, and TV/video interviews. (This is also an issue with Mr Waugh’s document eg http://www.labour.ie/padraigmcloughlin/news/13850589288874514.html) Thus it is not ‘fully referenced to the scientific literature’, which is a common claim for the book. Some of the studies have in fact been refuted – the Bassin et al. osteosarcoma/fluoride paper is a case in point.
If Mr Waugh has ‘damning evidence of harm’ then I suggest that he should submit it to full scientific scrutiny by submitting a paper for publication. Certainly the Irish Parliament hasn’t been all that impressed.
Julian Bravery says:
The main issues that those who are pro-hydrofluorosilicic acid as a means of mass medication refuse to address are;
– Informed consent
– Concentration vs dose
– The onus of proof being on the proponents to prove that it is a legal, safe, ethical and a scientifically justified practise.