HOME       SLOTT     JOHNSON     PERROTT    BILLY BUDD

Response by Paul Melters to “Cedric Katesby”
regarding Cedric’s allegations against Louise Mantella
November 28, 2013

COMMENT 47953 Paul Melters November 29, 2013 at 9:25 pm |

In COMMENT 47890 Cedric Katesby writes:

CEDRIC: "Quote-mining is just a sleazy way of lying and people need to be called out on it bold and clear.
Those papers don’t say what she was implying.
I understand that people don’t like to be called liars either but…it’s a fair comment.
Liars do exist and liars really hate being called liars.
Too bad for them.

Either someone is lying or they are not.
Spades and all that."


PM Response: Okay Cedric - I believe you're right - either people are lying or they're not.

I presume that you calling Louise a liar means that you have evidence that she lied?
You didn’t provide any, so I am wondering - what is your accusation is based on?

CEDRIC: "These papers don't say what she was implying."

PM Response: What specific paper(s) are you referring to?

CEDRIC: “If David (or anyone else) can demonstate that Louise was not at all quote-mining and - I DON’T apologise(!!) - then I’ll ban myself from ever taking part in any discussion ever on this or any other blog.”

PM Response: That would be very welcome indeed. Let's have a look at the quotes then, to find out if she was lying and “quote-mining”:

1) Regarding the Singh and Neidell papers;

In COMMENT 47704, Louise questions the validity of Billy Budd’s claims about those papers (see Budd’s COMMENT 47653).

She quotes Mascarenhas (2008):

Louise: “There are several limitations that should be considered. The major one is that the largest group in the study was children aged 6 to 7 years, who accounted for 28.8% of the study population. The permanent first molars in these children would not have been exposed to post-eruptive fluoride for sufficient time to prevent caries. Therefore, these subjects should not have been included in the study.”

Mascarenhas AK, Scott T. J Evid Based Dent Pract 8(1):17-8 (2008)

She later quotes almost the entire conclusion of Mascarenhas - see COMMENT 47747.

That’s exactly what the paper says - so - no lying here.

Mascarenhas AK, Scott T. Does exposure to fluoridated water during the crown completion and maturation phases of permanent first molars decrease pit and fissure caries? J Evid Based Dent Pract 8(1):17-8 (2008)
http://www.jebdp.com/article/S1532-3382(07)00201-1/abstract

SCORE: Louise 1 - Cedric 0

She further quotes from the Neidell paper:

LOUISE: By the author’s own admission:

“we were assigning the probability of fluoridation exposure when in fact, an individual was either exposed to flouridation or not.”

“The second concern is that we assigned historical fluoridation status to a respondent on the basis of the respondent’s current county of residence. Respondents, however, may not have lived in the same county for their entire lives”.

She obviously has the full paper, otherwise she wouldn’t be able to quote this - it’s not in the abstract.

Neidell M, Herzog K, Glied S. The association between community water fluoridation and adult tooth loss. Am J Public Health. 2010 Oct;100(10):1980-5. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.189555. Epub 2010 Aug 19. PubMed PMID: 20724674; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2936985.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724674

The actual paper states exactly as she quoted, so again - no lying.

She later, in COMMENT 47747, addresses further shortcomings in the Neidell paper such as the total lack of accounting for the 8 predictors of tooth loss. She knows her stuff. (NOTE: No further response from Billy Budd on this...)

SCORE: Louise 2 - Cedric 0

2) The quotes from reviews about fluoride in enamel and the effects thereof on caries.

In COMMENT 44705, Louise had asked Ken for references for his comments in his 2nd reply to Paul Connett  - and asked Ken to consider several quotes from various reviews on the matter. (Ken later asked for complete citations which Louise immediately provided in COMMENT 47724). (NOTE: Although Slott and Budd try to make it into something else, Louise - in FOUR different posts - specified that the issue at hand is fluoride in enamel and what that means to caries reduction. See: COMMENT 47723, COMMENT 47727, COMMENT 47739, COMMENT 47751 )

LOUISE: “Assuming that more fluoride in the enamel would provide a greater anti-caries protection, measurements of fluoride in enamel have been undertaken by many authors. However, most of these studies failed to clearly demonstrate an inverse relationship between fluoride enamel content and caries prevalence.”
(Arends & Christoffersen 1990; Duckworth & Gilbert, 1992, Feyerskov et al, 1981)

All three papers report exactly as stated by Louise:

Arends J, Christoffersen J. Nature and role of loosely bound fluoride in dental caries. J Dent Res 69:601-605 (1990)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2179320

Duckworth RM, Gilbert RJ. Intra-oral models to assess cariogenicity: Evaluation of oral fluoride and pH. J Dent Res 71:934-944 (1992)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1592990

Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. Rational use of fluorides in caries prevention. A concept based on possible cariostatic mechanisms. Acta Odontol Scand 39(4):241-9 (1981)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7034449

Score: Louise 3 - Cedric 0

LOUISE: “No significant relationship has been demonstrated between caries experience of the individual and fluoride content of the enamel. Furthermore, the fluoride content in surface enamel between teeth developed in low and “optimal” fluoride areas is too small to explain any significant effect on dissolution rate of the enamel.”(Feyerskov et al, 1981)

That’s what Feyerskov et al report. Also discussed in many other reviews since then, including Zimmer (2003) and Resin (2001) - which apparently have “Slott Approval”.

Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. Rational use of fluorides in caries prevention. A concept based on possible cariostatic mechanisms. Acta Odontol Scand 39(4):241-9 (1981)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7034449

Score: Louise 4 - Cedric 0

Louise: “It is concluded that even shark enamel containing 30,000 ppm F has a limited resistance against caries attacks.” (Oogard et al, 1988)

Again, exactly as reported, and discussed in many other reviews.

Ogaard B, Rölla G, Ruben J, Dijkman T, Arends J. Microradiographic study of demineralization of shark enamel in a human caries model. Scand J Dent Res. 1988 Jun;96(3):209-11. PubMed PMID: 2839893.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2839893

Score: Louise 5 - Cedric 0

Louise: “However, more recent studies suggest that fluoride present in the surface enamel does not significantly prevent acid production. The concentrations of fluoride present in the saliva are too low to affect bacterial metabolism.”(Rosin-Grget, 2001)

Again, exactly as cited, in proper context.

Rosin-Grget K, Lincir I. Current concept on the anticaries fluoride mechanism of the action. Coll Antropol 25(2):703-12 (2001)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11811302

Score: Louise 6 - Cedric 0

“Nevertheless, fluoride tablets continue to be prescribed as if the action of fluoride is expressed systemically.” (Bowen, 1991)

Appropriately cited.

Bowen WH. Caries prevention-fluoride: reaction paper. Adv Dent Res 5:46-9 (1991)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1819282

Score: Louise 7 - Cedric 0

Louise: “Thus, efforts to increase the fluoride content of dental hard tissues by systemic or topical fluoride are not a logical approach to caries prevention.” (Fejerskov et al, 1981)

Appropriately cited.

Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. Rational use of fluorides in caries prevention. A concept based on possible cariostatic mechanisms. Acta Odontol Scand 39(4):241-9 (1981)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7034449

Score: Louise 8 - Cedric 0

Louise: “The lack of benefit of pre-eruptive systemic fluoride application has been shown by Reich et al, who performed a prospective study in newborn children. The authors demonstrated that there was no difference in caries development at the age of 5 years if fluoride was administered as tablets right after birth as opposed to an application starting in the age of seven months, i.e. with the eruption of the first decidious tooth (Reich et al, 1992)”(Zimmer et al, 2003)

I don’t have Reich, but Louise actually quotes Zimmer (2003).

Again - cited appropriately.

Zimmer S, Jahn KR, Barthel CR. Recommendations for the use of fluoride in caries prevention. Oral Health Prev Dent 1(1):45-51 (2003)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15643748

Score: Louise 9 - Cedric 0

3) Papers on Dental Fluorosis causing caries

In COMMENT 47741, Louise quotes from 5 papers documenting that dental fluorosis causes an increase in caries.

re: Azpeitia-Valadez et al.

Louise: “Dental fluorosis is a defect in the formation of the enamel by high fluoride concentrations during tooth development. It produces hypomineralization of the enamel by increasing the porosity, thus exposing the tooth to decay...The severity was mild and very mild in 90 % of cases. Tooth decay appeared in 55 % of children with fluorosis and in 43 % of children without fluorosis….The prevalence of dental fluorosis is rapidly increasing. Tooth decay affected more often children with fluorosis.”

I found abstract on PubMed, and original paper on-line. I don’t read Spanish as I presume Mantella does, but English summary reports as stated.

Azpeitia-Valadez Mde L, Rodríguez-Frausto M, Sánchez-Hernández MA. Prevalence of dental fluorosis in children between 6 to 15 years old. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 46(1):67-72 (2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18647575
 
http://edumed.imss.gob.mx/edumed/rev_med/pdf/gra_art/A11.pdf

Score: Louise 10 - Cedric 0

re: Pontigo-Loyola et al.

Louise: “Finally, an association of severity of dental fluorosis and caries severity was observed. While fluorosis was very common, it was often mild or very mild. The results showed that children with dental fluorosis have higher severity of caries (DMFT 4).”€

“When we compared high-severity caries group (DMFT ≥4 as cutoff point), we observed higher caries severity in children with fluorosis (9.6 percent in very mild/mild, and 10.6 percent in moderate/severe) than children without fluorosis (7.8 percent). Additionally, compared only DMFT=0 versus DMFT ≥4 similar results were observed; prevalence of DMFT ≥4 in fluorosis-free children was 13.5, while 15.5 and 17.1 was observed in children with very mild/mild and moderate/severe fluorosis.”

No lying there either. Exactly as stated.

Pontigo-Loyola AP, Medina-Solis CE, Borges-Yañez SA, Patiño-Marín N,
Islas-Márquez A, Maupome G. Prevalence and severity of dental caries in
adolescents aged 12 and 15 living in communities with various fluoride
concentrations. J Public Health Dent. 2007 Winter;67(1):8-13. PubMed PMID:
17436973.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17436973.
http://www.uaeh.edu.mx/investigacion/icsa/LI_EnferAlter/Paty_Pont/34CARIESADOLESCENTESHGO.pdf

Score: Louise 11 - Cedric 0

re: Bajaj et al.

Louise: “While only 54.4% of those without fluorosis had caries, 80% of those with fluorosis had
caries.”

I can’t find the full paper, but found the study listed in MedIND, so I presume it’s legit.

Bajaj M, Blah BC, Goyal M, Jain M, Joshi A, Ko HH. Prevalence of dental problems in school children – a study in a rural community in Haryana. Indian Journal of Community Medicine 14 (3): 106-09 (1989)
http://www.ijcm.org.in/article.asp?issn=0970-0218;year=1989;volume=14;issue=3;spage=106;epage=109;aulast=Bajaj;type=0
http://medind.nic.in/imvw/imvw20076.html

Considering that Louise has cited everything else appropriately, and that other studies in India have reported similar findings, I believe that the paper has been cited appropriately.

Score: Louise 12 - Cedric 0

Re: Budipramana et al.

Louise: ““In this study, DT (Decayed Permanent Teeth) increased with an increase in the fluoride content.”

Cited appropriately.

Budipramana ES, Hapsoro A, Irmawati ES, Kuntari S. Dental fluorosis and caries prevalence in the fluorosis endemic area of Asembagus, Indonesia. Int J Paediatr Dent 12(6):415-22 (2002)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12452983

Score: Louise 13 - Cedric 0

Re: Hoffmann et al.

Louise: “A positive association between dental caries and enamel defects (hypoplasia, demarcated opacity and dental fluorosis) was observed for schoolchildren aged 5…The results of this study indicated that children had increased odds of dental caries when enamel defect was present, both in deciduous and permanent dentition…”

Cited appropriately.

Hoffman N, Schlittler RH, Sousa M, Cypriano S. Prevalence of enamel defects and the relationship to dental caries in deciduous and permanent dentition in Indaiatuba, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Cad. Saode Publica 23(2):435-444 (2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17221093

Score: Louise 14 - Cedric 0

CEDRIC: “If David (or anyone else) can demonstate that Louise was not at all quote-mining and - I DON’T apologise(!!) - then I’ll ban myself from ever taking part in any discussion ever on this or any other blog. Cedric Katesby will simply vanish forever from the internet.”

PM Response: Good Riddance!!

A copy of this comment will be posted at:
http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/cedric_-_melters.html

Paul Melters

===========================================

UPDATE: Dec 1, 2013

  After no response was received from “Cedric Katesby” after 2 days - even after having been alerted by his good friend Richard Christie (COMMENT 48029 ) that a response to his “challenge” had been posted, Paul Melters posted the following comment:

COMMENT 48030  Paul Melters  December 1, 2013 at 10:11 am

In COMMENT 48068, Cedric Katesby wrote:

CEDRIC: “In science, the work talks and the bullshit walks.”

PM Response: When are you going to start walking?

Or have you forgotten your wonderful promise already?

http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/fluoridation-debate-why-i-support-fluoridation-2nd-reply-to-connett/#comment-47953

As you said - “it’s put up or shut up around here.”

Paul Melters

=====================================

  “Cedric Katesby” responded in one of his usual rants, referring once again to anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, and the usual nonsense. Anything but to address issue IN CONTEXT. Insinuating that Melters did not understand what “quote mining” was, he failed entirely to address the issue of “context” in Melters’ response. (As stated and proved by Melters in COMMENT 47953, not ONE quote was cited out of context by Mantella). As stated by Melters, the only people who were “quote mining” were Slott and Richard Christie. From rationalwiki:

    Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[1] It's a way of lying.

Cedric’s entire comment 48074 is listed here. We urge everyone to read it in full as it serves as a prime example of some of the incredible pseudo-science crap posted on the Perrott blog.

COMMENT 48074 Cedric Katesby  December 1, 2013 at 9:54 pm

=============================

Paul Melters responded as follows:

COMMENT 48078Paul Melters  December 1, 2013 at 10:23 pm  |

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

In COMMENT 48074, CEDRIC Katesby wrote:

CEDRIC: ”Quote-mining. It’s about quote-mining. As in, lying by quote-mining.”

PM Response: Exactly. So before you post another 100 or 3000 words of self-important garbage and irrelevant videos, and the usual drivel about anti-vaccers etc., stick to the point and 
“put up or shut up.”

Name one quote out of context, used in a deceitful way. ONE. Go ask your buddy Richard to do the same. Maybe Slott can help you out as well.

Mantella clearly stated context 4 times.

Only people quote mining here were Slott and Richard.

Paul Melters

============================================================

Many hours later - comment still “awaiting moderation”...surprised?  PDF

I presume because it is “too aggressive” - as was Ken’s reason behind disallowing Louise’s comment, which wasn’t aggressive at all. Her only mistake was to make Ken look like a fool. He then proceeded as if her disallowed comment didn’t exist - very low tactics indeed - ethics anyone? More on that, click here.

Keep in mind that Cedric is allowed to call people “idiots”, tell them to “shut their pie-hole”, etc. etc.

Nothing aggressive about that, right?

Oh yeah - and no one was able to name ONE quote that was out of context. Just a bunch of nonsense.

What a sham. 

Paul Melters

UPDATE:

On Dec. 2, 2013 Ken Perrott posted the following “explanation”:

COMMENT 48168 Ken  December 2, 2013 at 4:20 pm  |

Paul Melters - I have held back a few of your comments as they have been antagonistic and added nothing to the discussion. If you wish to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin or Louise’s comments then do so on your own web site (Of course you will need to allow commenting to accomadate (sic) that).

Louise is more than welcome to rejoin the discussion and make her pwnpoints (sic) but surely doesn’t need you to act as her advocate.

RESPONSE by Paul Melters
Dec. 9, 2013

COMMENT 48527 Paul Melters December 10, 2013 at 10:04 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

In COMMENT 48168 Ken wrote:

KEN PERROTT: “Paul Melters- I have held back a few of your comments as they have been antagonistic and added nothing to the discussion. If you wish to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin or Louise’s comments then do so on your own web site (Of course you will need to allow commenting to accomadate (sic) that).

PM Response: Interesting, Ken Perrott. 
 
But let’s be real - the reason you’re holding back comments has nothing to do with them being “antagonistic’ or “not adding to the discussion”. You are censoring, plain and simple. The last comments (48078, 48083)
actually added much to the discussion - but of course you can not have someone embarrassing you or your small legion of minions once again, could you now? What if nobody can produce a quote guilty of “quote mining” as requested - oh no - you’d have to show fool Cedric the door, actually. Can’t have that now, can we? You were supposed to be the “arbiter”, weren't you?

CEDRIC: I’ll let Ken be the arbiter as to whether David (or someone else) has made sufficient demonstration and I promise to abide by any decision Ken might make.
His word is final.
That way nobody can accuse me of shifting the goal posts or welching on the deal.
I can’t be fairer than that.

PM Response: The mighty Ken Perrott!

Is this how you do “arbitration”?

Instead of addressing the issue - you censor comments because they “add nothing to the
discussion”?...Right... That way you don’t have to deal with any more embarrassing issues. You know very well that no “quote mining” took place. Otherwise you’d be able to provide an example. Just ONE. But you can’t. Quite the fair arbiter you are!

Just like Mantella’s request for a reference for your ridiculous “deficiency claim” was embarrassing to you. You couldn't find a reference because not one exists. It's total nonsense. But of course you couldn’t allow a 23-year old Tox student to embarrass you - nooo! You had to “disallow” that comment and then even go on pretending it didn’t exist and that you never read it.

Low. Very low.

I am forever grateful to Louise for sending me that PDF.

You’ve shown your true colors.

BTW - if you do want to make a comment on the website, you are certainly welcome to do so by sending an email, as is stated on the home page. 

And - oh yes - here comes the nonsense about “number of angels on a pinhead” again. I presume references to John Birch, anti-vaxxers, and climate deniers are not far behind? You guys really are all the same.

Have fun with your “science” blog - complete with censorship, red herrings and the merry strawmen!

KEN: Louise is more than welcome to rejoin the discussion and make her pwnpoints (sic) but surely doesn’t need you to act as her advocate.”

PM Response: I am sure Louise is more than capable of defending herself. I simply responded to fool Cedric’s challenge in comment 47890. You should read your own blog more carefully.

And - just so that you know - in the end it doesn’t matter that much to me if you allow these comments or not, because they will exist on my web page anyways. I am much more interested in having a public record of what is really happening on your blog.

Paul Melters

======================

More Melters to Cedric Katesby - COMMENT 48201
December 9, 2013