From festivals to better food, amusement parks are adding features for older adults. Take a look at what's new!

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
256
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

256 Views
Message 161 of 1,248

CarryAnne neither of your definitions apply to me. Unlike local (and presumably US) anti-fluoride organisations I have never started a group pretending to represent a grass root movement. Nor have I deliberately started an argument on ine.

Of course, you do not provide examples. I do often participate in online discussions on things related to misrepresentation of scient (anti-fluoridation activity, creationism, religion and the philosophy of science) and political issues (like the US policy of regime change and the Russiagate hysteria in the US).

 

Your question 1 is of the “when are you going to stop beating your wife?” type. There is absolutely no “barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans” coming from me. No one requested or directed my presence here. Like most exchanges, I came here because I became aware of a discussion that interested me. Not surprising, as I follow Richard, David and Bill on social media and have often “crossed swords” with them. (Bill has now opted out of any discussion by blocking me on social media – so I was surprised he responded to me here). Come to think of it, Bill does fit your description of a troll:
“A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.”

I was rather pleased when he blocked me because discussion with such trolls always proves useless – especially as it turns away any genuinely interested person.

 

Your questions 2 and answers is simply a copout. I was clearly asking for a good faith exchange on the science. My example was the exchange with Paul Connett – can you point to anything from me in that exchange which was not about the science and ethics? No. I can reveal that Paul did resort to a personal attack in one extremely long contribution – but removed the attack when he rewrote to reduce the length.

This is the sort of exchange I was offering you. OK, perhaps you feel inadequate with the science so do not wish to accept my offer. I can understand – but please don’t excuse your temerity with personal attacks on me.

My offer was genuine – but I am not surprised you declining it. I have noticed you cite many papers which you do not, and probably cannot discuss. You seem to be typical of the anti-fluoride troll who scans the literature, relies on titles, never reads beyond the abstract, if that, and is incapable of honestly and openly discussing the science involved,

Perhaps Richard would take up the offer. After all, we have similar chemical qualifications so should be able to discuss the science easily.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
256
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
279
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

279 Views
Message 162 of 1,248

"Carrie Anne,"  your quote:  

 

"Question 1: Why did a New Zealand blogger infamous for his posts supporting fluoridation & denigrating opponents both on his blog and on letters to the editor across the English speaking world suddenly join the AARP - American Academy of Retired Persons which is "dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age" with a barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans on the AARP forum?

  • Answer: He was recruited by a small but organized team of fluoridationists."

 

Response:  Since I am almost the only "fluoridationist" commenting on this website at the moment, it's a reasonable assumption that you are referring to me.  I can assure you, "Carrie Anne," that I did not "recruit" KenP.  I know him from his blog and I can honestly say that I disagree with him about almost everything, except perhaps this issue.  And why would that be odd?  Most people in the English speaking world support CWF. 

 

Your little fringe anti-fluoride group is so small that only 4000 signatures were collected Worldwide on the Fluoride Action Network's "Opposition to Fluoridation Statement."  That represents a whopping 0.036% of all health care and other professionals who believe what you believe.   The fact that KenP and I agree on this issue is completely in line with the odds.

 

Who recruited KenP?  I don't know . . but I can say that they have this really cool thing called "Google Search."  It's pretty slick.  And since KenP does take an interest in this subject, it is reasonable to assume that he might be in on that neat internet trick "Google Search."

 

Now I'm going to do what you do.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with you.  

 

Paranoid:  of, characterized by, or suffering from the mental condition of paranoia.

 

Paranoia:  a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
279
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
272
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

272 Views
Message 163 of 1,248

I haven't looked too deeply into the fluoride-cancer issue, except for specifically analysing a few papers. But one thing that strikes me is that the reports anti-fluoride activists rely on usually have inadequate statistical analyses. For instance, ignoring the very low explanatory power of the relationships reported (low R-squared values) and ignoring other risk-modifying factors (which when included show that there is no real relationship with fluoride.

I discussed these problems with the Takahashi et al., (2001 paper here:

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/fluoridation-and-cancer/

And the general reliance of anti-fluoride activists on poor statistical analyses here:
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/anti-fluoridation-campaigners-often-use-statistical-s...


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
272
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
286
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

286 Views
Message 164 of 1,248

Astroturfing: An organized activity that is intended to create a false impression of a widespread, spontaneously arising, grassroots movement ... 

Troll: A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain. 

 

Question 1: Why did a New Zealand blogger infamous for his posts supporting fluoridation & denigrating opponents both on his blog and on letters to the editor across the English speaking world suddenly join the AARP - American Asociation of Retired Persons which is "dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age" with a barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans on the AARP forum?

  • Answer: He was recruited by a small but organized team of fluoridationists. 

Question 2: What would prevent an intelligent person from engaging in a debate on OpenParachute with Ken P? 

  • Answer 1: This is about evidence & ethics, not personalities. 
  • Answer 2: Letting someone who repeatedly describes his opponents in debates as 'dishonest,' 'deranged' and 'so intellectually stubborn as to make rational discussion impossible' and refers to scientific studies and reports that do not support his point of view as 'pathetic,' 'ideologically approved' and 'unscientific' control an online debate on his website under his control is the equivalent of a battered woman giving her husband another chance after getting out of the hospital from a beating. Fatally naive

Note: Language in quotes from KenP within the last 48 hours directed at AARP seniors. 

 

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 2.37.56 PM.pngKenP - 19 comments in 48 hours

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
286
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
285
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

285 Views
Message 165 of 1,248

Claims that fluoride is related to cancer are mistaken.

 

An exhaustive review of all the scientific data was done by the California Carcinogen Identification Committee.   Full briefs were filed by a number of fluoridation opponents.

 

The commmittee, composed of a scientists with broad technical expertise voted unanimously that fluoride is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH CANCER AT ANY concentration.

 

All of the documents considered may be viewed here:

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic092311.html

 

Formal reviews by expert panels are the highest quality of scientific information.   There really is nothing more to discuss re fluoride and cancer.

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
285
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
281
Views

Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand

281 Views
Message 166 of 1,248

CarryAnne - what a weird response. I comment here with a reasonable offer for you to expand on the numerous claims and citations you have made here. I offer a good faith scientific exchange along the lines of that I had with Paul Connett 5 years ago. I made that exchange available also on Researchgate and it had had numerous downloads and reads. I have been told that people have found it an ideal source becuase of the topics covered and the citations used by Paul and me. Don't forget, at least half of the content was Paul's

And you respond with what looks like a deranged Neo-McCarthyist attack.

Do you understand what astroturfing is? I am picking you don't because, at least on my side, there has never been an example of astroturfing.

And what is this about me "revealling" my identity as if I had something to hide. I registed here with my perosnal information and location - nothing is hidden. I refer to myself, my research, my scientific publications and to my blog articles on this issue. Nothing is hidden from my side. I have an extensive published research record and all that is easily available online and can be accessed at Researchgate:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Perrott/research

Perhaps I should make the charge that you are hiding you full name, using a non-deplume and providing no information on your background or expertise (or lack thereof).

Come on! Front up. What is your answer. Will, you particpate in an uncensored free exchange of the science in good faith? If not, why not? At the moment it looks very much as if you are running away from the offer and spreading disinformation to cover your retreat.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
281
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
306
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

306 Views
Message 167 of 1,248

Richard, still at it I see.  

 

Your quote:  "I did not say that cancer survival was irrelevant. It must be nice to change peoples' words to have the luxury of criticizing and demeaning them."

 

Response:  Before you play the victim here, slow down and take a look at what you said:  "the notion that fluoridation does not affect cancer survival is not proven by the presented data. That suggests improved detrction and treatment methods are helping to bring rates,down."

My response to that was:  "so if "cancer survival" is irrelevant because of improved treatment, as you are saying . . "

 

As you seem to have limited capacity, yes, you said  current data which shows cancer rates are declining (that would be cancer survival) is irrelevant to the fact that the practice of water fluoridation is increasing.  You said this is because of improved treatment methods . . . which begged the question, why did you bring it up in the first place.

 

It must be nice to live in a world in which you can absorb half a thought, take it out of context, and then pretend that you are some sort of victim.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
306
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
295
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

295 Views
Message 168 of 1,248

Bill, could you please provide a citation for this paper you refer to - the use of NaF to induce cancer?

I would like to check out the conditions used to assess its relevance to this discussion.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
295
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
302
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

302 Views
Message 169 of 1,248

One thing you said I agree with, that is you are totally confused about my quote. 

I did not say that cancer survival was irrelevant. It must be nice to change peoples' words to have the luxury of criticizing and demeaning them.

To help your confusion:  Yiamouyiannis carefully examined pre and post fluoridation data on cancer mortiality in cities in the U.S. In all cases, the decline in cancer mortality incidence that occurred in all cities was slowed by fluoridation. So, again, the idea that others have somehow proven that fluoridation does not impair the decline in cancer mortality is absurd. The cancer statistics you provided are for the whole country and do not separate fluoridated from non fluoridated people. So of course cancer overall incidence declines will be found due to improved detection and treatment. 

But fluoridation interferes with one's ablity to fight cancer because fluoride is a toxic foreign substance in man and the rate of decline of cancer mortality incidence is not as great in fluoridated cities. This has all been thoroughly vetted in several court trials by epidemiologist experts. You can choose to believe who you want because of your desires. i choose to stick with the actual data from observations that were well done to address the specific question. 

Please stop spreading your confusion to everyone else.

And I don't scaremonger. If fluoridated water is all you have to drink in the middle of the desert, then drink it.  But if you expect me to hide the truth about its long term ingestion you are barking up the wrong tree. i don't lie, to my family, friends, or anyone else.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
302
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
300
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

300 Views
Message 170 of 1,248

BillO, your comment:

 

" Instead of going to a historical news society column, I went to PubMed and did a search for the words "cancer" and "fluoride"  in the primary literature. "

 

Response:  No doubt.  I'm sure there are dozens of studies by authors who have something they want to prove or have some sort of axe to grind . . . Or you could just take a look at the American Cancer Society's list of known and probable carcinogens.   It's right here.   https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

 

Guess what, fluoride isn't listed.   But you're Dr. Bill.  I'm sure you are more knowledgable about cancer than the experts at the American Cancer Society.  

 

Your quote:  "Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

 

You guessed it.  SODIUM FLUORIDE."

 

Response:  Guess what.  Sodium fluoride isn't listed as a known or probable cancer causer either.  You need to get the ACS on board with your way of thinking, because, you know, you're a lot smarter than they are.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
300
Views