SciBlogs

Posts Tagged politics

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 – what really happened? Ken Perrott Oct 23

No Comments

Three months after the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine the world is no wiser about what, and who, caused this crash. Well, we have the preliminary report but this only confirmed the bleeding obvious (“the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft”) and did nothing to either support, or undermine, the various theories circulating about this tragedy (see MH17 – Preliminary report leaves most conspiracy theories intact).

This new documentary probably won’t decide viewers one way or the other either. But it at least presents more evidence, more objectively, than our media usually presents and does not force a predetermined political agenda down the viewer’s throat.

If nothing else, it keeps the issue alive. We should not forget this tragedy and we should identify its causes and perpetrators. It’s not as if we are short of evidence – just short of the political will required to allow its collection and fearless presentation.

MH-17: THE UNTOLD STORY

22 OCTOBER 2014

From the documentary makers – RTD Films.

Three months after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was violently brought down from the skies over Ukraine, there are still no definitive answers to what caused the tragedy. Civil conflict in the area prevented international experts from conducting a full and thorough investigation. The wreckage should have been collected and scrupulously re-assembled to identify all the damage, but this standard investigative procedure was never carried out. Until that’s done, evidence can only be gleaned from pictures of the debris, the flight recorders or black boxes and eye-witnesses’ testimonies.  This may be enough to help build a picture of what really happened to the aircraft, whether a rocket fired from the ground or gunfire from a military jet.

Similar articles

 

The science and politics of climate change Ken Perrott Oct 05

No Comments

Michael Mann: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars – TAM 2013.

Have a look at this video for an excellent description of the history and science of climate change. It’s presented by one of the central figures.

Michael Mann has become a great popular science communicator – especially on climate science and the political attacks on science.

He was effectively forced into this public role by the political attacks on him He tells his story very well in his book  The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. It’s a great read – highly recommended.

Read “Good faith” science – and its enemies for my review of Michael Mann’s book.

Similar articles

 

Peer review of an anti-fluoride “peer review” Ken Perrott Sep 29

No Comments

In  Anti-fluoride activists define kangaroo court as “independent” I promised to review the anti-fluoridationist International Peer Review.” This is Anti-fluoride  critique of the recent review Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence produced by the Royal Society of NZ together with the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor (hereafter refered to as the Royal Society Review).

So here is my peer review, of a review, of a review.

General comments

Anti-fluoride activists have  busily mentioned all the apparent contributors to this critique but I will only deal with Kathleen Theissen’s and Chris Neurath’s comments as only these have any substance.  James Beck declined comment saying only “On the current New Zealand case I don’t think I can do any better than Chris has done.” Similarly Speeding Micklem says only that “Chris’s analysis is excellent.”

Hardy Limeback does not engage at all with the science in the Royal Society Review, but does express his emotional attitude towards it. He says:

“I can’t be bothered to show step by step where this review does not meet the standards of critical scientific analysis. . . . Chris is right on the ball in critiquing this review. I’m not sure many people will appreciate just how detailed he is.
I’m disgusted by how sloppy the NZ reviewers were. They were obviously politically motivated.”

However, Limeback’s comment on the use they will make of their critique is interesting:

“The effort to critiquing every paragraph of the NZ review is taxing but once it is done and posted on the website, it would be most useful for those people who want to take on the promoters of fluoridation who will undoubtedly use this review to support the profluoridation agenda and point to how unscientific, one-sided, politically motivated this review really is.
I would be happy to lend my name to the list of scientific reviewers of this critique.”

So, you can get an idea of what their purpose is in their “peer review.”

Now, the specific issues raised in Theissen and Neurath’s comments.

Margin of safety

The Royal Society Review found some population groups may exceed the prescribed “safe” levels of F intake. So Theissen concludes that “the fluoride concentration in drinking water is too high and should be lowered.” However, she ignores completely the review’s comments on this issue.

“Infants 0-6 months of age who are exclusively fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water will have intakes at or exceeding the upper end of the recommended range (UL; 0.7 mg/day). The higher intakes may help strengthen the developing teeth against future decay, but are also associated with a slightly increased risk of very mild or mild dental fluorosis. This risk is considered to be very low, and recommendations from several authoritative groups support the safety of reconstituting infant formula with fluoridated water.”

The review also noted that children from 1 – 4 yrs old do not exceed recommended levels on F intake but intake from ingested toothpaste my increase intake above recommended levels. It goes on to conclude:

“Consumption of fluoridated water is highly recommended for young children, as is the use of fluoride toothpaste (regular strength – at least 1000ppm), but only a smear of toothpaste should be used, and children should be supervised during toothbrushing to ensure that toothpaste is not swallowed/eaten.”

I also discussed the issue of risk for formula-fed infants in my article When politicians and bureaucrats decide the science  and in my exchange with Paul Connett. Here I note how “peace of mind” advice to those parents who may be concerned about increased risk of dental fluorosis gets presented by anti-fluoride people as safety warnings.

Adequacy of standards for fluoride intake

Theissen discusses the adequacy of a stands for F intake at length but her only beef with the Royal Society Review on this appears to be that it doesn’t challenge existing standards. She herself considers that these standards should be revised to “obtained values much lower than those currently considers desirable by the New Zealand government.” But here she is promoting a personal agenda and not objectively critiquing the Royal Society Review.

Effects of community water fluoridation (CWF) in NZ

Theissen considers that the NZ review offered “little documentation for the beneficial effects of fluoride.” Strange – has she read the review? Table A2 lists 21 major reviews it considered and 7 New Zealand sources were included – the 2009 NZ Oral Health Survey and regional studies in Otago, Southland, Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland and Northland.

If that was insufficient for Theissen then why is her only counter to mention John Coulquhoun’s reminiscences in his article of 1997? It is not enough for Theissen to use his assertions “that there are virtually no differences in tooth decay rates related to fluoridation” and “25 percent of children had dental fluorosis.” But has she bothered to check out his data at all critically? Why no more citations supporting her  claim?

Coulquoun was a committed anti-fluoridationist  and a critical check of his claims show them to be unreliable. Here is a sentence from the abstract of his paper Colquhon 1985:

“In the unfluoridated areas all the children, and in the fluoridated areas only selected children, had received regular topical fluoride treatments.” And he concluded “When the socioeconomic variable is allowed for, child dental health appears to be better in the unfluoridated areas.”

Apart from the wishful thinking displayed in his interpretation of a statistically non-significant difference he has glossed over the fact that both fluoridated and unfluoridated groups were receiving fluoride treatments of one sort or another!

Similarly, Theissen puts more trust in Colquhoun’s brief comment on dental fluorsis than the several  pages on this subject in the review. Anti-fluoride propagandists are continually misrepresenting dental fluorosis data to imply any extremely mild forms attributable to fluoridation should be treated like the severe forms which are not caused by fluoridation. The Royal Society review’s comment on the aesthetic effects help bring some context back on this issue:

“It is important to note that the seemingly high prevalence of fluorosis reported in some studies and systematic reviews includes mainly mild and very mild (and sometimes questionable) degrees of fluorosis, with only a small proportion that would be considered to be of aesthetic concern.

Surveys have shown that very mild to mild dental fluorosis is not associated with negative impact on perception of oral health,[142] and that adolescents actually preferred the whiteness associated with mild fluorosis.[143] In a recent study, adolescents answered a questionnaire regarding the impact of enamel fluorosis on dental aesthetics, older adolescents rated photographs of mild fluorosis more favorably than younger ones. A fluorosis score indicative of moderate fluorosis was the level considered to have aesthetic significance. Carious teeth were rated significantly lower than fluorosed teeth.[144]

Carcinogenicity and genotoxicity

Theissen, like almost all anti-fluoride propagandists, relies completely on the  the Bassin et al (2006) study for evidence here and ignores later studies which did not confirm Bassin’s work. In my exchange with Connett I criticised him for the same tactic (see Fluoride debate: Final article – Ken Perrott):

“the importance Paul gives to a single study on fluoride and osteosarcoma illustrates his mechanical and selective approach to “weight of evidence.” He has not bothered including either the study by Comber et al (2011) of this issue in Ireland or the study by Levy & Leclerc (2012) for the US. Possibly because both of these concluded that water fluoridation has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates.”

So while Theissen is upset the Review “dismisses” Bassin’s work, this is not the “out of hand” rejection she implies. The Review says:

“The few studies that have suggested a cancer link with CWF suffer from poor methodology and/or errors in analysis. Multiple thorough systematic reviews conducted between 2000 and 2011 all concluded that based on the best available evidence, fluoride (at any level) could not be classified as carcinogenic in humans. More recent studies, including a large and detailed study in the UK in 2014, have not changed this conclusion. “

Neurotoxicity

I partially agree with Neurath’s charge on the inadequacy of the Royal Society’s comment on the standardised weighted mean difference in IQ scores discussed by Choi at al (2012). Some people have made a lot of the confusion around this issue. I would like someone with good statistical skills to comment on the risks involved in making such an analysis in a meta study where there is no conformity of experimental design or treatment in the individual studies.  Wikipedia lists a number of pitfalls in statistical meta analysis, two of which seem particularly relevant here – publication bias and agenda-driven bias. In my article Quality and selection counts in fluoride research I described how the studies used had been selected and it is hard not to see an agenda behind this. So, I do think Choi et al’s statistical analysis is questionable.

However,  this issue is irrelevant to CWF because of the generally high drinking water fluoride concentrations used in these studies. Theissen and Neurath resort to the special pleading in their efforts to avoid that problem.

Theissen stressed that in the Choi et al review “One study had “high” at 0.88 mg/L, quite relevant to CWF.” Neurath says “In fact, one of the Chinese IQ studies had an average water concentration of 0.88 mgL in the high exposure group.”

At first sight this seems relevant to CWF and Paul Connett, like many anti-fluoride activists, stress this study in defending the relevance of Choi et al (2012). Strange then that none of them actually discuss the study details. Perhaps we should.

The study is a one and a half pages newsletter report:

Lin et al (1991). The relationship of of low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter, 24–25.

It has few of the details we normally expect in scientific papers. For example, I would like to know what the range of fluoride concentrations was in the drinking water, what other dietary intake occurred, how was the “dental fluorosis” observed defined, etc.

Children from low iodine areas were compared with a group from another area that had received iodine supplementation. About 15% of the children suffered mental retardation, 69% of these exhibited subclinical endemic cretinism. The effect of iodine supplementation was clear, the effect of fluoride not so clear. But anyway, hardly a report to hang any conclusion on about CWF in New Zealand.

They also resorted to special pleading to downplay other problems with these studies:

Theissen:

“the one study . .  that did not show lower IQ still showed a tendency in that direction (just not statistically significant) and it certianly did not show clear absence of any effect”

“While some of the neurotixicity studies did not address confounders, some did handle them responsibly” [Most of them didn't]

Neurath:

“most of the studies did consider other sources of exposure such as from food dried over coal fires . . . This in almost all studies, major alternative sources of fluoride exposure were ruled out or controlled for” ”  – [In fact they weren't as most didn't consider other inputs]

“several of the studies did consider each of these potentially confounding factors, and at least one group of researchers (lead by Xiang) considered all of them and more.” [yes, one – “all and more” – but why not consider Xiang in detail then? Why try to spread his thoroughness throughout all these meagre studies?

“simply failing to assess these factors in a study does not mean the study was confounded and produced invalid results.” [well no, but isn't it best to check known confounders?]

fan-conf-2014-sturmer-300x200

“Connett’s get-together” – 5th FAN Conference, Sept 6-8, 2014. Credit: Photo by Corey Sturmer,

Anti-fluoride people also often single out the study of Xiang, et al (2003). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride, 36(2), 84–94, because unlike the others it is more detailed.  Xiang’s team has studied areas where fluorosis is endemic. Here is a slide from his presentation  to Paul Connett’s recent anti-fluoride “get-together” (Xiang 2014). This is not the very mild dental fluorosis attributed to CWF.

xiang-Endemic fluorosis

Now I think severe dental fluorosis like this would create learning difficulties for children in the same way dental decay does (Seirawan et al 2012). I suggested this in Confirmation blindness on the fluoride-IQ issuePresumably Xiang could have analysed his data to check if the apparent IQ drop was correlated with the prevalence of dental fluorosis. I would think that could be an obvious first step.

Theissen  berates the Royal Society review for suggesting there is no plausible mechanism for the effect of F on IQ. Instead she resorts to special pleading again – admitting “no mechanism has been established,” attributing that to lack of research, not the absence of a mechanism. And then speculating on possible mechanism related to thyroid function, etc. The trouble is that this sort of special pleading can soon convert logical possibilities into established proof in the minds of the faithful. And meanwhile an obvious possible cause of the IQ data may be staring her in the face but she is oblivious because it does not involve “brain damage.”

Animal studies

Theissen rejects the Royal Society’s dismissal of results from animal studies because of the high concentrations used in them. She says baldly “animals require much higher exposures (5-20 times higher, or more; see NRC 2006; 2009). But what does NRC 2006 actually say (The NRC 2009 simply references NRC 2006)? It discussed the contradictory data used for attempting to show a ratio between humans and rats for blood plasma levels and concluded:

“Dunipace et al. (1995) concluded that rats require about five times greater water concentrations than humans to reach the same plasma concentration. That factor appears uncertain, in part because the ratio can change with age or length of exposure. In addition, this approach compares water concentrations, not dose. Plasma levels can also vary considerably both between people and in the same person over time (Ekstrand 1978).”

Again Theissen resorts to special pleading converting a vague possibility into an established “fact” in an effort to justify the unquestioned use of animal studies using high concentrations.

Mullinex et al (1995) also attempted to justify use of similar animal studies by comparison of blood plasma F levels. However, there is a huge range and variability in these levels so extremely easy to make subjective justification. I am suspicious of such speculation.

While I am happy to  acknowledge that it may be too simple to equate the effects for humans and animals at the same intakes, I think Theissen’s assertion “animals require much higher exposures” is straw-clutching. Millunex et al (1995) exhibited the same straw-clutching when she asserted plasma levels in her rats were similar to those in “humans exposed to high levels of fluoride.” Anti-fluoride activists love to quote Mullinex while ignore or downplaying the word “high.” She was quoting plasma F concentrations for children receiving 5 – 10, and 16 mg/L F, 10 or 20 times higher than used in CWF! But the huge effect of treatment time on plasma F concentration in rats must surely warn any objective reader to be very careful about these sort of claims. (Rats receiving 125 ppm F had plasma concentrations of about 0.1 mg/L after 6 weeks exposure but 0.64 ± 0.31  mg/L after 20 weeks).

Endrocrine effects

Theissen appears not to have properly read this section of the Royal Society Review.

Contrary to her assertion it does refer to the NRC discussion of these effects and comments:

“Most of the reviewed animal studies were designed to ascertain whether certain effects occurred, and not to determine the lowest exposures at which they occurred. The report concluded that fluoride (at unspecified levels) can affect normal endocrine function or response, and that better characterisation of fluoride exposure in humans in epidemiological studies is needed to investigate the potential endocrine effects of fluoride.”

It acknowledges potential effects (at unspecified levels) despite Theissen’s claim it “failed to mention” them. However, at this time no such effects have been observed in humans at the concentrations used in CWF. So the Review summarises its findings this way:

“A number of other alleged effects of CWF on health outcomes have been reviewed, including effects on reproduction, endocrine function, cardiovascular and renal effects, and effects on the immune system. The most reliable and valid evidence to date for all of these effects indicates that fluoride in levels used for CWF does not pose appreciable risks of harm to human health.”

Conclusion

The Royal Society Review evaluated current scientific knowledge on health effects of fluoridation. It was requested by the Auckland Council on behalf of several local Councils. They wanted a review of the scientific evidence for and against the efficacy and safety of fluoridation of public water supplies. This requirement arose from the recent campaigns by anti-fluoridation activists who targeted individual councils with a barrage of misinformation.

We should understand that the size and accessibility of the Review is aimed at informing public decision-making on the issue.  For this reason it also deals with New Zealand aspects. It is not meant to be as extensive and detailed as the 530 page US National Research Council report.

Hopefully any future consideration of community water fluoridation by local body councils will be better informed because of the Royal Society review. In particular it should help counter the sort of misinformation that has confused some councils in the past.


References

Colquhoun, J. (1985). Influence of social class and fluoridation on child dental health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 13(1), 37–41.

Bassin, E. B., Wypij, D., Davis, R. B., & Mittleman, M. a. (2006). Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes & Control : CCC, 17(4), 421–8.

Choi, A. L., Sun, G., Zhang, Y., & Grandjean, P. (2012). Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10), 1362–1368.

Comber, H., Deady, S., Montgomery, E., & Gavin, A. (2011). Drinking water fluoridation and osteosarcoma incidence on the island of Ireland. Cancer Causes & Control : CCC, 22(6), 919–24. doi:10.1007/s10552-011-9765-0

Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence (p. 74). Royal Society of New Zealand and Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.

Levy, M., & Leclerc, B.-S. (2012). Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents. Cancer Epidemiology, 36(2), e83–e88.

Lin Fa-Fu, Aihaiti, Zhao Hong-Xin, Lin Jin, Jiang Ji-Yong, Maimaiti, and A. (1991). The relationship of of low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter, 24–25.

Ministry of Health. (2010). Our Oral Health: Key findings of the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

Mullenix, Phyllis J., Debenstein. Pamela K., Schunior, A., & Kernan, W. J. (1995). Nuerotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 17(2), 169–177.

National Research Council. (2006) Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Seirawan, H., Faust, S., & Mulligan, R. (2012). The impact of oral health on the academic performance of disadvantaged children. American Journal of Public Health, 102(9), 1729–34.

Thiessen, KM., & Neurath, C. (2014). International Peer Review of the Royal Society/PM Science Advisor Office Fluoridation Review. Internet document.

Xiang, Q; Liang, Y; Chen, L; Wang, C; Chen, B; Chen, X; Zhouc, M. (2003). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride, 36(2), 84–94.

Xiang, Q. (2014) Fluoride and IQ research in ChinaKeynote Address at FAN’s 5th Citizens’ Conference on Fluoride.

 

 

The information war – The NZ Listener takes up arms Ken Perrott Sep 28

No Comments

First – have a look at this satirical programme from Germany. It has English captions but is worth watching a few times for the subtleties.

I have commented before about the information war going on around the Ukrainian conflict. It might seem like a distant issue here (and it usually doesn’t get much coverage). But I believe the biassed propaganda we are exposed to is dangerous because of its jingoism.

And this week the NZ Listener brought the conflict right into our living rooms with an editorial which uses the same innuendo and unconfirmed claims that feeds this jingoism (see Alarmed World).

Out of the blue in a piece seeming to be about Islamic State and the conflict in the Middle East we get this:

The West faces a similar test of its resolve in Ukraine, where attempts to deter Russian-backed aggression have been largely ineffectual. The world knows that Russia supports the separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, that it has troops on Ukrainian soil and that it probably supplied the missiles that brought down a Malaysian airliner. Yet the European Union’s sanctions against Russia have succeeded only in provoking economic counter-measures that have hurt European food producers, for whom Russia was a $19 billion export market, and threats to ban “unfriendly” airlines from Russian airspace.

The assertion the “world knows” has become a substitute for evidence! The world certainly knew when the USSR invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, or the US invaded Iraq. We could see the evidence. Tanks surging across borders, planes bombing, troops on the ground. But nothing of that here (except the occasional soldier who claims to have lost his way – or fuzzy satellite photos of combine harvesters*).

[Yes, I know the presence in Ukraine of Russian and other voluntary (or even mercenary) fighters is well established - fighting on both sides. But that is not the same as invasion of a foreign army the media often claims.]

The “world knows” that Russia “probably” supplied missiles used to shoot down Malaysian airline MH17 – when the world knows nothing of the sort! At this stage this issue is wide open (see MH17 – Preliminary report leaves most conspiracy theories intact) – but it seems our media thinks we don’t deserve anything better than unwarranted claims on such a serious matter.

That shows no respect for the victims of this tragedy.

As for the danger of this sort of biased reporting and media manipulation, and the jingoism it promotes, we can read the last paragraph in the Listener editorial.

“What has become painfully apparent, in both the Middle East and Ukraine, is that the democratic West is susceptible to paralysis and self-doubt when confronted with the forces of totalitarianism and autocracy. Perhaps it’s time to consider what the world’s fate might have been without the moral resolve exhibited by Churchill and Roosevelt in World War II.”

Isn’t this the sort of talk used to prepare a population for war?


UPDATE

* Of course I have taken poetic license here about these fuzzy photos. After all,  whether these were photos of artillary or combine harvesters is not evidence for or against an invasion. We know that both sides in Ukraine have plenty of artillery weapons and are using them. But for the pedantic, and those confused by my aside, here are some links to the combine harvester/artillery story:

Dave Lindorff writes about it in his article Satellite Images of Alleged Russian Artillery in Ukraine Come A-Cropper. He produced this photo below:

combines.preview

And commented:

“In the ongoing propaganda campaign mounted by the Obama administration to claim that Russia has “invaded” Ukraine from the east, it offered up some grainy black-and-white satellite images purporting to show heavy Russian military equipment inside Ukraine.

I earlier noted how unlikely it was that heavy mobile artillery pieces would be set up in a perfect line in what appeared to be a field of crops, with, as the government claimed, cannons aimed towards Ukrainian positions in toward the west. As I pointed out, there was no sign of piles of ammunition alongside these “units” as we routinely see in closeups of heavy mobile artillery — for example in photos of IDF pieces positioned outside of Gaza. I also noted the unlikelihood that such equipment would have been set up in an open field, unprotected by trees or other cover, and lined up to make for easy targeting by enemy artillery or air attack.

Now an alert reader from the agricultural state of Texas (Laredo, TX to be precise), has sent a note suggesting out that what the supposedly incriminating images most likely show are combines in a field of grain or some other crop planted in rows. He sent along photos showing harvesters, which of course feature a long, straight “cannon-like” tube which is used to shoot the harvested grain up and into an accompanying truck to be hauled off to market or to a storage silo.”

Here is a higher resolution of the satellite photo which, I understand, came from the US State Department:

artillery_2

(from European Union Court of Justice Imposes Anti-Rasmussen Rule – Sanctions Cannot Be Imposed by Reason of Fabrication, Lies, Dissimulation)

I wouldn’t pretend to draw any definite conclusions from these photos but I think Dave Lindorff  has a point:

“Now maybe the released satellite images do show Russian artillery, but given Washington’s extensive history of abject lying in the interest of promoting its war agenda (think Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMDs and mobile poison gas factories, Assad gas attacks in Damascus, etc.), it’s worth taking the claim with a “grain” of…well, in this case actual grain.”

Similar articles

 

 

Activist’s anti-science adverts found misleading – again Ken Perrott Sep 24

3 Comments

The activist Fluoride Free NZ (FFNZ) organisation have had a bad year with the Advertising Complaint Authority (ASA). They have had half a dozen complaints against the for misleading advertising upheld.

The latest complaint referred to FFNZ’s adverts for a meeting they organised in Rotorua last July. This advert claimed

“Informed Doctors and Dentists say:

KEEP FLUORIDE OUT

Keep Rotorua’s water safe. It’s our right to choose.

Swallowing Fluoride

Is unsafe for babies

Doesn’t protect teeth

Can cause harm.”

The complaint basically was that these claims were presented as matters of fact, rather than opinion. And the declarations of harm, danger to babies and lack of effectiveness protecting teeth were effectively claims implying scientific  substantiation. It also raised the issue of misrepresentation of the views of New Zealand doctors and dentists – implying that the claims are supported by a majority of these professional when they aren’t. Quite the opposite.

In fact, FFNZ can get only about half a dozen such professionals willing to promote their message. It is dishonest to then use these handful of mavericks to imply the whole profession supports the anti-fluoride claims.

The complainant also pointed out the advert was effectively indulging in scaremongering because it claimed there was harm, when there wasn’t any, and it appeared to be promoting the advice of professionals, when professionals weren’t saying what was claimed.

The ASA ruling concludes:

“The Complaints Board said the advertisement was likely to mislead as the claims were presented as facts, but were not substantiated by the Advertiser, in breach of Basic Principle 3 and Rule 2 and was not saved by advocacy, in breach of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics. It said the advertisement unjustifiably played on fear, in breach of Rule 6 of the Code of Ethics and was socially irresponsible in breach Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics and the Complaints Board ruled the matter was upheld.

It is good to see more people coming forward to make these sort of complaints. The anti-science lobby has been getting away with this sort of misrepresentation for years. Hopefully the experience of the ASA upholding such complaints will embarrass organisation like this to be more careful in their advertising.

In many cases all it takes is a simple sentence to clarify the advert is presenting the viewpoint or belief  of the advertiser, rather than scientifically established facts.

Activist’s anti-science adverts found misleading – again Ken Perrott Sep 24

No Comments

The activist Fluoride Free NZ (FFNZ) organisation have had a bad year with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). They have had half a dozen complaints against them for misleading advertising upheld.

The latest complaint referred to FFNZ’s adverts for a meeting they organised in Rotorua last July. This advert claimed

“Informed Doctors and Dentists say:
KEEP FLUORIDE OUT
Keep Rotorua’s water safe. It’s our right to choose.
Swallowing Fluoride

Is unsafe for babies
Doesn’t protect teeth
Can cause harm.”

The complaint basically was that these claims were presented as matters of fact, rather than opinion. And the declarations of harm, danger to babies and lack of effectiveness protecting teeth were effectively claims implying scientific  substantiation. It also raised the issue of misrepresentation of the views of New Zealand doctors and dentists – implying that the claims are supported by a majority of these professional when they aren’t. Quite the opposite.

In fact, FFNZ can get only about half a dozen such professionals willing to promote their message. It is dishonest to then use these handful of mavericks to imply the whole profession supports the anti-fluoride claims.

The complainant also pointed out the advert was effectively indulging in scaremongering because it claimed there was harm, when there wasn’t any, and it appeared to be promoting the advice of professionals, when professionals weren’t saying what was claimed.

The ASA ruling concludes:

“The Complaints Board said the advertisement was likely to mislead as the claims were presented as facts, but were not substantiated by the Advertiser, in breach of Basic Principle 3 and Rule 2 and was not saved by advocacy, in breach of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics. It said the advertisement unjustifiably played on fear, in breach of Rule 6 of the Code of Ethics and was socially irresponsible in breach Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics and the Complaints Board ruled the matter was upheld.

It is good to see more people coming forward to make these sort of complaints. The anti-science lobby has been getting away with this sort of misrepresentation for years. Hopefully the experience of the ASA upholding such complaints will embarrass organisation like this to be more careful in their advertising.

In many cases all it takes is a simple sentence to clarify the advert is presenting the viewpoint or belief  of the advertiser, rather than scientifically established facts.

It’s time we did something about sugar Ken Perrott Sep 17

No Comments

sugar-caries

I saw this image in the paper:

Sheiham, A., & James, W. P. T. (2014). A reappraisal of the quantitative relationship between sugar intake and dental caries: the need for new criteria for developing goals for sugar intake. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 863.

It’s a very graphic illustration of the central role played by dietary sugar in tooth decay. Certianly makes one think about how to drastically reduce our dietary sugar intake.

There are a couple of “take home messages” in the paper:

“Sugar is the primary cause of dental caries”

Ths seems to have been debated in the past but is now widely accepted. Because acid attack arising from sugar metabolism is the only mechanism for inducing caries:

“the only confounding factors i.e. tooth brushing and the use of fluoride in drinking water or toothpaste serve to reduce the magnitude of the simple relationship between sugar intake changes and caries incidence.”

However fluoride is not a “silver bullet:”

“although fluoride reduces caries, unacceptably high levels of caries in adults persist in all countries, even in those with widespread water fluoridation and the use of fluoridated toothpastes [21].”

We shouldn’t neglect adult tooth decay

Perhaps we have been underestimating the problem because the apparent improvement in oral health comes from considering data for children:

“The sugar-caries relationship in adults has been largely ignored: all the conclusions on safe levels of sugar and the relationship between sugar and caries are based on children’s data. With fluoride and greater dental care caries has declined in children so some dental authorities have concluded that sugars are not a major determinant of caries provided fluoride toothpaste is use diligently with or without water fluoridation. However, it is now evident that the majority of caries occurs in adults, not in children, because the disease is cumulative and the rates of caries in individuals tracks from early childhood to adolescence and then into adulthood [21,26]. So the conclusion that sugar is not the major determinant of caries, is simply wrong.”

The impact of fluoride

Anti-fluoride propagandists are already quoting this research – using the central role of sugar to imply this proves fluoride is ineffective. But the authors say:

“Fluoride is associated with about 25% lower caries experience when sugar intakes are constant between 10-15%E [10-15% of energy itnake from sugar]  in 12 year-old children [20]. The widescale use of fluoride toothpaste is a reasonable explanation for the decline in children’s caries in many countries since the 1970s, yet what then becomes relatively evident is that caries becomes more prominent in adolescents and adults [4,21].

Ireland has had a mandatory national water fluoridation policy since 1964 but some areas have not implemented the fluoridation policy thereby allowing a comparison within a country where fluoride toothpaste is in widespread use but drinking water fluoride varies. Additional benefits accrued from having fluoride in water as well as toothpastes but 7.3% of even the youngest adults aged 16-24 years with lifelong fluoride exposure still had dental caries experience in 4.6 teeth as did 53% of the 35-44-year-olds assessed 35 years after the beginning of water fluoridation: the mean DMFT was 13.3 and 16.0 in those living in non-fluoridated areas [15]. Australia has water fluoridation in a number of cities, but despite fluoride use from both toothpastes and drinking water the mean DMFT and DF Surfaces for all adults increased; adults aged 65 years and older had ten times higher levels of caries than 15–24-year-olds [16]. Thus although fluoride reduces caries, unacceptably high levels of caries in adults persist in all countries, even in those with widespread water fluoridation and the use of fluoridated toothpastes [21].”

So research is showing a strong need to cut dietary sugar intake by both children and adults.  The authors say “for multiple reasons, including obesity and diabetes prevention, we need to adopt a new and radical policy of progressive sugar reduction.” They conclude:

“that public health goals need to set sugar intakes ideally <3%E with <5%E as a pragmatic goal, even when fluoride is widely used. Adult as well as children’s caries burdens should define the new criteria for developing goals for sugar intake.”

Obviously community water fluoridation (CWF) remains an important issue in New Zealand because political activists still work hard to remove it, or prevent it when health authorities attempt its introduction. It seems to me, though, that CWF, once achieved, plays its important role without having to continually educate and encourage the population to change their dietary habits. The battle over sugar will be so much harder because it will involve social pressure to change personal habits, as well as countering all the anti-science and freedom of choice arguments.

At least local body councils, and immature local body politics, will not play a key role.

Similar articles

 

 

 

Crude dredging of the scientific literature Ken Perrott Sep 15

1 Comment

I am always amazed at how some people will crudely misrepresent the scientific literature in their efforts to pretend their particular political agenda is scientifically valid. The way they will dredge the scientific literature searching for studies they can quote and misrepresent seems an extreme form of cherry picking and confirmation bias. Surely those indulging in such crude literature dredging are fully aware of what they are doing.

Here is an example of literature dredging I picked up recently. The offender is Michael Connett, Special Projects Director for Paul Connett’s Fluoride Action network (yes – a bit of nepotism there. Son Michael and Wife Ellen are on the payroll). Michael has a legal qualification, but no scientific qualification. Nevertheless, one of his special projects is a litrerature database anti-fluoride activists can use in their propaganda.

Any and every scientific publication that can be quoted, misquoted or misrepresented in arguments against fluoridation.

Here are a couple of slides from Michael’s talk at recent anti-fluoride get-together organised by the Connetts. It’s about “Fluoride and  IQ Studies” and the section was meant to show that recent research confirms community water fluoridation is bad for our brain. So he found 4 studies from on rats from 2014.

I have extracted from each cited paper details from the conclusions and the fluoride concentrations of the drinking water given to the rats.

Keep in mind that in New Zealand the recommended optimum concentration for community fluoridated water is 0.7 – 1.0 mg/L.


1-connett-m.fan-conference

“We found that NaF treatment-impaired learning and memory in these rats.” The NaF treatments were 25, 50 and 100 mg/L!


4-connett-m.fan-conference

“these results indicated that long-term fluoride administration can enhance the excitement of male mice, impair recognition memory, . . ” The NaF treatments were 25, 50 and 100 mg/L!


3-connett-m.fan-conference

“exploration preference in the novel object recognition test was significantly altered in mice treated with 5 and 10 mg/L NaF compared with the water-treated control animals.”


2-connett-m.fan-conference

“These data indicate that fluoride and arsenic, either alone or combined, can decrease learning and memory ability in rats.” “The rats in the F, As, and F+As groups had access to drinking water with a 120 mg/L NaF solution, 70 mg/L NaAsO2 solution, and combined 120 mg/ L NaF and 70 mg/L NaAsO2 solution for 3 months, respectively.


It’s the old story. Find evidence for adverse effects at concentration much higher the optimum and pretend the results apply to the optimum.

Beware of political activists who claim their agenda has scientific support. There is a good chance they are manipulating the science.

Update

Surpise, suprise. FAN has used young Michael’s talk at their get-together to launch a press release - Fluoride’s Brain Damage Studies Mounting. This will be sent through their usual social media merry-go-round in the hope that the MSM picks it up somehwere.

Just what one expects from a political activist organisation.

Similar articles

Anti-fluoride activists define kangaroo court as “independent” Ken Perrott Sep 12

1 Comment

A kangaroo court is a mock or illegal court that is set up in violation of established legal procedure

The international anti-fluoride movement seems somewhat pre-occupied with thew situation in New Zealand.  In the last few months they have unleashed their “big guns” to attack two publications from local scientific researchers.  First was their attempt to discredit the paper Broadbent, J. M., Thomson, W. M., Ramrakha, S., Moffitt, T. E., Zeng, J., Foster Page, L. A., & Poulton, R. (2014). Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand. American Journal of Public Health. Now they have produced an International Peer Review of the  review Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence. This was commissioned by Sir Peter Gluckman, the New Zealand Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and Sir David Skegg, President of the Royal Society of New Zealand at the request of Auckland City on behalf of several local Councils.

Fluoride Free NZ pretends that the Royal Society Review “was sent out for review by five independent international experts” and a press release from their astroturf organisation the NZ Fluoridation Information Service repeats the independent claim (see NZ fluoridation report trashed by international reviewers).

Well let’s have a look. How independent are the authors of the critique?

An “independent” peer review?

I don’t think so. Here are the authors – chosen by the anti-fluoride movement, of course – together with affiliations and a little history


Kathleen Theissen, Environmental Risk Scientists. I don’t know what the affiliation “environment Risk Scientists,” is. Perhaps a consultancy. However, she is still listed as an affiliate on the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis web site. Theissen was one of the minority* anti-fluoride members on the National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water which produced the NRC reviewFluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” She frequently writes articles and submissions opposing community water fluoridation

Chris Neurath, Research Director, American Environmental Health Studies Project. Neurath is also the “Research Director,” of Paul Connett’s Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The American Environmental Health Studies Project is really just the Fluoride Action Network in drag with a couple of other similar organisations tied in.

Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto. Limeback was also an anti-fluoride minority member of the  National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water which produced the NRC review Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” He is also an anti-fluoride activist who writes often on the issue and a member of the Advisory Board of Paul Connett’s Fluoride Alert Network.

 

James Beck, a co-author together with Paul Connett of the anti-fluoridation book The Case against Fluoride.

Spedding Micklem, also a co-author together with Paul Connett of the anti-fluoridation book The Case against Fluoride.


So, definitely not independent

This is a serious distortion of the truth by Fluoride Free NZ because they have continual described the authors of the Royal Society Review as not independent. They wrote, for example (see Fluoridation review ‘Dirty Science’ – Fluoride Free NZ):

“The NZ “expert panel” included only people who were already known to be ardently in favour of fluoridation and not one single person who is known to be opposed, or even someone neutral. It was therefore already a foregone conclusion.”

So, I can only conclude that these people define “independent” to mean that they agree with them – they have an anti-fluoride political stance. And they define anyone whose scientific work produces an objectively determine conclusion favourable to the consensus understanding of the effectiveness and safety of community water fluoridation as not independent!

I can only repeat, how do these hypocritical people sleep straight in their bed’s at night.

How valid are their criticisms

OK, so these people are not independent – but how valid are there criticisms. That is another issue. I am preparing a detailed analysis of the claims made in this critique and will post it in the next few days. So, watch this space.


*Three of the 12 members of the committee expressed disagreement with some fo the committee’s conclusions.

Similar articles

MH17 – Preliminary report leaves most conspiracy theories intact Ken Perrott Sep 10

No Comments

Report-MH17

Click on image above, or link below, to download report

I downloaded the official Preliminary report of the MH17 crash in east Ukraine last night. I must say that although the report appears comprehensive as far as it goes – it doesn’t go far. Certainly nowhere near answering the questions everyone has about this tragedy.

It does rule out pilot error or technical malfunction. But we are almost as much in the dark  about causes as we were on July 17 when the plane crashed. Except, perhaps, the evidence does not fit with an on-board bomb or other explosion. Believers in any of the other causes or conspiracy theories will all claim support from this report.

High-energy objects

The report concludes:

Based on the preliminary findings to date, no indications of any technical or operational issues were found with the aircraft or crew prior to the ending of the CVR [Cockpit Voice Recorder] and FOR [Flight data Recorder] recording at 13.20:03 hrs.

The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft. It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up.

This is consistent with either of the major hypotheses:

  1. The plane was downed by a surface-to-air missile launched by armed forces of the Kiev government, the Russian Federation or the opposition pro-autonomy militias.
  2. The plane was downed by an air-to-air missile launched by a Ukrainian or Russian plane (or planes).
  3. The plane was downed by cannon and/or machine gun fire  from a Ukrainian or Russian plane (or planes).

The “high-energy objects” could be shrapnel from a missile (these are designed to explode at a distance from the target and spray it with shrapnel) or bullets. The report concludes the objects came from outside the aircraft but does not help identify their origin or nature.

The intriguing question of the damage being caused by bullets and not (or as well as) shrapnel will have to await more detailed analysis of the wreckage. So far fighting in the area has prevented a complete examination of the wreckage or its movement to a safe area for reconstruction. However, there are many high resolution photographs available on the internet which have been used to support all of the above hypotheses.

Let’s hope the current cease-fire will enable investigators to return to the crash site.

fig7

cockpit-floor

 

Radar evidence

I found discussion of the Air Traffic Control surveillance data unsatisfying. It says:

For this investigation ATC surveillance data was obtained from both Ukraine (UkSATSE) D and the Russian Federation. The data obtained was the following:

  • Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids

  • Secondary surveillance radar (SSR / Mode S)

  • Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) ground based reception.

Unfortunately the second two systems only check commercial aircraft. The primary surveillance data from the Russian Federation will be critical as when first released it indicated the presence of a military aircraft in the vicinity of MH17 at the time of the crash. The preliminary report only discusses the 3 commercial airliners nearby at the time.

However, the report says that analysis of the surveillance data “is ongoing.” Hopefully the investigation team will be able to get the equivalent primary surveillance radar data from the Kiev government for this. So far Kiev has refused to make this information public and the report does not mention getting it.

Conclusion

This is an important preliminary report which at least confirms the aircraft was down by accidental or intentional attack. It gives absolutely no help in identifying the source of the attack and is therefore miles behind various unofficial on-line reports advancing various scenarios. So the Dutch Safety Board Report is very unsatisfying to anyone who has followed the on-line discussions.

We will now have to with another year for the final report. Although, given the political sensitivities which are likely to be involved and the requirement of feedback from various governments on reported findings, I would not be at all surprised if that takes even longer. I suspect such sensitivities may have been the reason for the delay in this preliminary report.

Meanwhile, I urge interested readers to download the preliminary report and read it for themselves. Its less than 34 pages can be read very quickly.

Similar articles

 

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer