HOME            SLOTT          JOHNSON          PERROTT           BILLY BUDD

Paul Melters’ response to Billy Budd - Comment 48189 - Perrott Blog
December 9, 2013

COMMENT 48531  Paul Melters   December 10, 2013 at 10:31 am  

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

In COMMENT 48189, Billy Budd wrote:

Billy Budd: “More mistaken views from PM (#47951)

Said PM: “Stop deflecting. That the older studies were not included in some review by the NRC does in no way diminish the quality or the findings by the researchers. We’re not here to discuss inclusion criteria by the NRC.”

This truly cuts to the heart of much of the fluoride opposition propaganda. If there are no standards by which various items are deemed to be of sufficient scientific quality to count in the analytical review of community water fluoridation, politics, not science, will rule.

Over the years, mere conjecture, an individual story, junk pseudo-science, political opinion, newspaper editorials and poor science from peer reviewed journals have been used, very successfully, in local political campaigns to defeat community water fluoridation.

Merely an old publishing date is not an important matter, but the professional weight of science considerations which led to inclusion in the NRC references were most serious decisions and you are entirely mistaken to argue otherwise.”

PM Response: Are you really this ignorant or just pretending to be?

RE - 2006 NRC:

"The committee was asked to review toxicologic, epidemiologic, and clinical data, particularly data published since 1993."

Do you understand that? Since 1-9-9-3. 1993. Nineteen-ninety-three.

Bajaj et al, was from 1989.

Three of the other studies from the 5 were published AFTER the 2006 NRC report - can you comprehend this? (Pontoga-Loyola et al. 2007; Hoffman et al, 2008; Azpeitia-Valadez et a, 2008).

BUDD: “Indeed, legitimate arguments over whether the standards used for a given systematic review are reasonable or not exist. One such professional discussion has been whether or not epidemiological studies can be of sufficient substance to reasonably base public health policy upon.”

PM Response: If you want to discuss systematic reviews and their shortcomings, start a new thread. We can certainly discuss it. Be ready.

BUDD: “Fluoridation opponents on the one hand demand only “gold standard randomized blinded controlled studies” yet have thousands of times over cited egregious baloney to support their arguments.

What is politically effective is even much worse than what might be brought up in debates like this.

It would be nice of Professor Connett would publicly agree to a list of transparently false politically effective lines we see used in local campaigns.

As examples

Fluoride is in Agent Orange and Sarin Gas
People only drink .4% (or whatever it is) therefore fluoridation is wasteful
The Nazis used it to pacify prisoners
Fluoridation is part of a global scheme to depopulate the world
They are dumping industrial grade chemicals in the water
Aluminum plants are dumping their industrial waste in city water
The Phosphate Fertilizer companies are paying off their Dental Society shills to promote this”

PM Response: It would be nice for you to stop making generalized statements about ‘fluoridation opponents” and address the issues at hand. Stop writing this nonsense. I am not sure what I have to do with Connett, but oh well - I guess you’re grasping at straws. Oh - you left out the big “Communist Plot” on your list, BTW.

Paul Melters