You have ignored most questions completely, and those you claim to have answered have been reinterpreted before “answering” – thus answering your questions and not mine, as demonstrated below.
Let’s start over with one very simple yes or no question:
Question) Do you believe that ALL the science and health experts in the world who accept the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is safe and effective (or who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions), “don't think for themselves … No conspiracy…. Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science. All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”? Depending on that answer, I will provide others. Despite your protestations to the contrary, my questions have everything to do with science-based evidence.
This question is in reply to your comments on, (08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM) & (07-09-2018 09:09 PM)
Below are all your previous “un-answers” to my questions (you can read here) that I have found.
U-A12) 10-28-2018 12:10 PM, You claim, “I rely on evidence based science.” And then go off on a rant against the EPA.
That still does not answer one of the primary questions I started with – repeated above. Answer that single question and then other specific questions can be answered one at a time until you answer questions I ask instead of your interpretation of my questions.
U-A11) 10-26-2018 07:03 PM, You claimed, “Instead of focusing on the research, fluoridationists focus on the people talking about the research.”
Actually, my concern is that a primary tactic of anti-science activists is to focus on the conclusions of people who are outliers talking about their interpretation of the research instead of the scientific consensus. For example your interpretation of the 2017 IQ study by Bashash et al. in this comment presents only your personal, biased interpretation of a complex study presented in a public format that is not conducive to discussing and evaluating the conclusions. You fail, for example, to quote the second paragraph of the conclusion which begins, “Community water and salt fluoridation, and fluoride toothpaste use, substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries and is acknowledged as a public health success story.” And you don’t mention the five long paragraphs of limitations the authors discuss which include their inability to determine whether exposure to toxins, like arsenic, might be responsible for any observations. In other words you present an excellent example of selective reporting of study conclusions, out of context in a manner deliberately designed to cause fear = Fear-Mongering. I will defer to several discussions which cover the same study limitations I was able to spot when I read it – and more. Ken Perrott, Johnny Johnson, Jr. DMD, MS, Steve Slott, DDS, ADA, AADR, Snopes
U-A10) 10-25-2018 02:27 PM “Lets move on to the science. But one more try at answering your questions. I have asked you to discuss science and you keep diverging onto people. … Your last post which is more mellow than most of your posts, has two example.. ‘anti-science’ Really? Any scientist who disagrees with the CDC, ADA (or you?) is anti-science? … ’fear-mongering’ Really? Scared of science?”
As I carefully explained in my 10-26-2018 02:17 AM reply, you completely and deliberately misinterpreted my description of ‘anti-science’ as anyone who disagrees with science and ‘fear-mongering’ as moving away from science and “diverging onto people”.
If you actually read and understood my question and my reply, you would comprehend the fact that my questions to you have EVERYTHING to do with science and the way people with extreme beliefs will ignore science and do anything to protect and promote those beliefs. Science does not exist without people, and I have seen absolutely no rational explanation from you on why, if the “evidence” you wish to keep dumping onto the public is legitimate, only about 13 alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (along with groups like INFOWARS [Alex Jones] and Natural News [Mike Adams]) oppose CWF.
U-A9) 10-24-2018 07:58 PM – You accuse me: “Attack, name calling, attack, name calling, disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks. Your response clearly answers your own questions. Not one reference to science, all opinion and attack. Try being professional and see where that gets you. What about scientific evidence based discussion scares you? … In time, those opposed will say it was really their idea in the beginning. Not long from now you will also be opposed to ingesting excess fluoride.”
As I have pointed out repeatedly, my question are not directed against any scientists or health professionals who hold conclusions that differ from the scientific consensus and work as scientists to resolve those differences.
As I have pointed out over and over, questioning the scientific consensus is one of the fundamental and critical aspects of science – it is the only way science progresses.
My questions are about the disingenuous tactics of small bands of anti-science activists who go far beyond legitimate disagreements and normal procedures of working to resolve them. The tactics of anti-science activists consist of:
a) dismissing the scientific consensus of relevant experts and accepted by virtually all recognized science and health organizations,
b) demanding that their opinions be accepted based on their interpretations of carefully selected “evidence”,
c) instead of working with the scientific and health communities (which is the accepted scientific procedure if legitimate evidence exists) they take their arguments – and interpretations of the “evidence” – to the public (most of who don’t have the training and experience to accurately evaluate the evidence),
d) they employ a variety of techniques including fear-mongering, adjusting/fabricating (evidence), and casting suspicion on the majority of science and health experts who accept the scientific consensus to influence public opinion.
I have always been “opposed to ingesting excess fluoride“. That is the kind of irrational statement commonly employed by anti-science activists to misdirect the public. Currently, the consensus of organizations like the WHO, ADA, CDC, AAP. AMA, etc. does not define drinking optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) along with other sources of exposure to fluoride ions as “ingesting excess fluoride”.
Again, my question – if the “evidence” you present is legitimate, obvious and as damaging as fluoridation opponents claim
a) why have a majority of professionals in all (or any) of these organizations (and the 100+ others) not recognized those alleged dangers?
b) why have anti-science activists not worked within the science and health communities to alert them and change the consensus?
c) why have anti-science activists taken the battle to the public using the tactics listed above.
When I first became aware of the anti-F arguments several decades ago I became concerned about the possible consequences that I read about, and I began examining the evidence and the conclusions drawn by both sides. The alleged damage to health presented by fluoridation opponents were initially very troubling, but as I began tracking the anti-F claims back to their sources I began to recognize the same tactics (outlined above) I had seen employed by other anti-science activists. When FOs demanded that Denver stop CWF in 2015, I decided not to remain silent and began exposing the tactics of fluoridation opponents whenever they attempted to hijack the processes of democracy by employing the disingenuous tactics of anti-science activists.
U-A8) 10-23-2018 05:24 PM “I'm EVIDENCE based, NOT organization or individual based. I am persuaded by facts, not people. (Money persuades people. Facts are less biased.) The questions you asked are not scientificly based and cannot be answered by empirical evidence. You questions are political, personality, and human based. … I answered your four questions.”
Anti-science activists are not evidence based, they WEAPONIZE EVIDENCE. You have answered none of my questions. Once you answer my questions about the tactics of anti-science activists, then the specific “empirical evidence” and the way anti-science activists distort it can be discussed.
U-A7) 10-23-2018 03:00 PM – In answer to my specific Q2) “I will ask you specifically, what makes you a better expert in fluoridation than the members of all the organizations that continue to support CWF? It could be argued that you are a lemming, follower, part of a herd of FOs that allow their irrational fear of fluorine to bias their selection, evaluation and presentation of the scientific evidence." You replied “Become "EVIDENCE BASED" rather than ‘human based, individual, organization based.’” and you followed that with a description of your experience, “When the evidence became clear that the cult was based on fraud, lies, and mistakes, I left the cult.” That seems to be a not-so-subtle attempt to suggest that all organizations that support CWF are part of a global cult based on fraud, lies and mistakes and all those who accept the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective are members of a cult? That fits well with your “lemmings/puppets” descriptions that I have been trying to get you to clarify.
People design and implement scientific observations and experiments; people evaluate the resulting evidence and draw conclusions; people develop the scientific consensus based on the best interpretation of the conclusions from all studies and observations.
I am trying to figure out how you can believe that the hundreds of thousands of people (trained science and health care professionals) who are members of the 100+ organizations that support CWF and who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions have all completely missed or misinterpreted the “evidence” which you keep focusing on.
U-A6) 10-23-2018 01:39 PM “I have also answered most of your questions but you fail to read, or at least fail to respond to the answers.”
As noted above and below – your responses were not answers to my questions – they were answers to your rewriting of my questions.
U-A5) 10-23-2018 02:15 PM “provides partial answer to some of your questions”
This is a copy of Limeback’s opinion piece and answers none of my specific questions to you.
U-A4) 10-21-2018 04:14 PM “Do not cherry pick science to prove a point. Twisting and manipulating science and claiming it says something it does not, is not scientific.”
That is the only rational and accurate response to my questions I have read. However, as I and others have demonstrated repeatedly, it is the anti-science activists who cherry pick any shred of “evidence” they believe can be used to support their opinions, and they are masters at twisting and manipulating science and claiming it proves something it does not. That is why the major science and health communities follow an accurate and considered evaluation of the entire body of evidence and have concluded nearly unanimously that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay.
U-A3) 09-15-2018 08:22 PM “I stand by my statements because you do not provide evidence to the contrary. If you would spend more time checking the endorsements rather than simply regurgitating the mantra, you would be shocked. Circular referencing is a huge problem.”
This comment is an excellent example of how you divert the conversation away from providing specific answers to my specific questions by trying to play the “evidence game”. You provide what you believe to be examples of organizations allegedly cherry picking evidence that only supports CWF and then engaging in the game of “circular referencing” and “endorsing” each other.
You apparently believe, no one in any of those organizations has ever considered and evaluated all the evidence – you seem to believe some individuals simply decided CWF was safe and effective based on their sloppy research, ignorance and a deluded belief that CWF could help reduce dental decay (perhaps an ouija board and tea-leaf readings were involved), and the other science and health professionals blindly followed that conclusion like lemmings or puppets – is that an accurate presentation of how you would describe all members of the 100+ organizations that support CWF who have not rebelled?
And, just for the record, how do you differentiate the listing of studies and reviews which support CWF in this comment with the list of references in the IAOMT “Position Paper against Fluoride Use…” you continually reference. That paper is simply a blanket condemnation of exposure to fluoride ions from any source at any exposure level and includes newspaper and magazine articles, blogs, etc. provided as “references”. I discussed that further, 08-29-2018 05:58 PM, Q5
U-A2) 09-04-2018 02:04 PM “Lets talk science rather concensus. The next few posts will be just a touch on one aspect of fluoride, carcinogenicity. Remember, the masses can be wrong. Marketing can change public opinion.”
That begins your Gish Gallop postings of 14 comments packed with “evidence” you seem to believe causes cancer – yet the organizations of experts responsible for understanding cancer have not concluded those studies proved CWF causes cancer. Do you believe these experts on cancer are all “lemmings, followers, not scientists” who “don't think for themselves or review the research”? Are they all uninformed puppets with fluoridation opponents the only “experts” on cancer? This is another example of you playing the “evidence game”
Fact alert! The scientific consensus depends on the legitimate interpretation of scientific evidence by expert scientists – You can’t “talk science rather than consensus” they are inseparable.
U-A1) 08-27-2018 01:40 AM “The title here is "Scientific Consensus; however, your comments are about ‘Endorsement Consensus.’” and “Yes, like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to support fluoridation.”
Irrelevant nonsense – Whatever you mean by “Endorsement Consensus” is based on the Scientific Consensus!
If the public support of CWF by the 100+ science and health organizations does not demonstrate the scientific consensus (along with the lack of support of the anti-F opinions), then please explain your understanding of the Scientific Consensus as it relates to three public health measures – community water disinfection (and other water treatment processes), vaccination, and CWF.
Randy Johnson
