I’m certain that journalists reporting upon the current changes in behaviour regarding the use of fluoride in drinking water will search online for relevant media and I hope that I attract a couple of them.
I’ve produced a number of articles and a couple videos on the subject, which I hope will make your work as a journalist, easier.
Firstly, I don’t care either way about the use of fluoride. My position is that it seems to work, is cheap and safe based entirely upon the available scientific literature. If that changes, so be it. Yet I’m surprised that forty years of exposure in many of our capital cities has failed to demonstrate a collapse of populations…
Anyway, the content I have, I hope both illustrates typical flaws used by the anti-fluoride enthusiasts which can be used by any good journalist to keep them honest and accountable. It also brings to light evidence of a pseudo-effect (people thinking they’re sick from fluoridated water when in fact, they didn’t have it) etc.
I especially hope this content finds a journalist whom is lucky enough to interview Merilyn Haines and the Queenslanders for Safe Water, Air and Food, simply because this group pretends to champion the science, while instead they insist the that the science doesn’t exist when it doesn’t support their view and inflate any potential argument in their favour even when the researchers involved simply don’t make such a point.
Please feel free to look through the my replies to the general anti-fluoridation arguments or I hope the content listed below is of value (oldest to newest).
Tooth Decay = Brain Decay: The Real Myth Behind Fluoride
A Look at Water Fluoridation Across Different Communities
Reply To Merilyn Haines: Fluoride and How Science Doesn’t Match the Doubt
Fluorosis and Fluoride Induced Stupidity: The Scourge That Does Not Exist
The Cavities in the anti-Fluoride Movement: Further Proof Never to Take “Evidence” at Face Value
The Insulated Ideology of QAWF and Merilyn Haines
Dear Anti-Fluoridated Water Enthusiast
Misleading: Is Merilyn Haines the Innocent Casting Stones?
Osteosarcoma rates in Australia: Is Fluoridation Doing Us Harm?
How Not to Argue in Favour of Environments: Water Fluoridation in Portland
Fluoridation, Arsenic and the Rates of Cancer in Australia
Dead-Head Denialism: Challenging “Sceptics” of Climate Change to Fluoridation is Zombie Warfare
newanthropocene.wordpress.com 
Your hope that journalists would do some research and find your “research” cough cough..is..amusing at best.
They just cut and paste quotes from “experts”…and extrapolate..a bit like yourself. 🙂
And where are the results of the Pittsburgh 1978 enquiry which actually had the pro fluoride scientists in the box so to speak where they were forced to answer questions with their own data.???
Perhaps your about to quote the US congressional enquiry results where the scientists, once again were able to present their science..and be questioned.
Or perhaps not. 🙂
Perhaps your about to discuss how amazing it is that without fluoride(the toxic poison) many people around the world still manage to have great dental health, or that with fluoride, decay is still increasing in australia.
(Gee..I had never thought about that)
Perhaps your about to discuss how Hopewood childrens home, without fluoridation managed to achieve such amazing dental health without fluoride..due to that crazy idea of limiting sugar and healthy diets.
I could go on..but whats the point 🙂
No doubt I am a conspiracy buff, believe in aliens etc etc..yawn.insert standard ad hominems…
No doubt you are 100% clueless.. 🙂
But at least you can appear normal and repeat “things you have heard” without ever thinking.
How safe and happy..
Cheers..
LikeLike
You are but one of an army of flying monkeys to attack the messenger, claiming me to be stupid, while not taking a single moment to actually look at any of the content. If you had, you’d know I entirely rely upon the standing scientific research. Most damning, if I actually look at the studies and reviews that Merilyn and QAWF approve, I find that these studies and reviews don’t agree with Merilyn and QAWF.
I don’t care one way or another, my only point is that fluoride does work and that Merilyn and QAWF rely upon a lot of misinformation when one looks at the credible evidence and their asserted claims.
Of course, you and all the flying monkeys need for me to be clueless or a fluoride promoter so that, unlike what I’ve done, you can safely avoid fact checking and remain perfectly insulated with your empty world view.
You’re not unique and you comment isn’t clever. You are simply, faithfully parroting off the nonsense of the anti-fluoride truthers..
LikeLike
I find it disturbing that your effort to raise the level of debate in an issue which relies completely on reviewed scientific research and evidence based decision-making (and this applies equally to discussion on climate change, vaccination etc) swiftly deteriorates to juvenile ad hominem responses which do nothing for the case of those whose arguments might otherwise be worthy of reply.
Regrettably, it is not only this forum where the quality of discussion and argument is so wanting, but your impact is appreciated.
One of your objectives clearly has been to inform those who otherwise have no opinion one way or the other. In this way can disinterested parties gain the knowledge needed to become interested and hopefully just a tiny bit involved. The challenge is to provide guidance to allow administrators and politicians to make decisions based on facts rather than emotion.
The problem with the flying monkey attack is that they are a distraction – and by the way, this works both ways. An example of this is complete lack of value they add to discussion on climate change every time there is a change in the weather.
Please keep at it, Moth – your persistence is to be admired.
LikeLike
Cheers.. You should see the comment I’ve been getting to my fluoride video on their YouTube pages! I must say, however, I find them very rewarding. I know Merilyn and QAWF have been watching my growing content and criticism of their scientific integrity, yet they’ve chosen to refrain from direct contact.
On the other hand, I’ve had hoards of insults in a void of valid counter-arguement. All of this suggests that my analysis is correct; they just don’t feel comfortable with fluoride and don’t really have evidence to support this position.
How Merilyn and QAWF have been goes a step further – I suspect they know how weak their position is. They couldn’t refer to papers and reviews without having read them and so probably already know these don’t really back them up. They’re just used to people taken their word for it.
So it’s good news in all. Every foaming comment just brings a smile to my face. Every name hurled or claim of my ignorance makes me laugh. Clearly they don’t know as much about their position as I do, nor do they actually know this about me because they’ve chosen to assume whatever without actually reading or watching my content!
Thanks for the kudos! The future for our children is too important to allow misinformation to slide, taking us the one extra step back towards a dark age.
LikeLike
I’m planning on writing an article on the fluoridation debate very soon. Thanks for the links. Any tips?
LikeLike
Sure Leighton. Feel free to look through my content. If you would like to look into other questions, feel free to contact me to discuss them. I’ve not heard a serious challenge to the use of fluoride so I’m sure I can help: wow.the.moth@gmail.com
LikeLike
Moth who do you work for? I have found that every source like yourself to have a bias. I see no disclosure of you motives but its usually money.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t you expect that, if I were being paid, I’d at least pay the loose change required to secure a real domain name rather than persist with “.wordpress”, not to mention name the site less obscurely in relation to fluoride, like “fluoride action”?
All the information required about me is available. I am a research officer that supports environmental monitoring projects. No money comes my way for my online efforts. A little time in searching would have made that clear, but I have found that those whom dislike my work tend to avoid information that counters their world perceptions.
All that motivates me is a frustration towards misinformers, a passion for quality information and desire to leave a prosperous, sustainable and increasingly intelligent world in my wake.
I’m not sorry if your pet theory gets in the way of that goal. Instead of attacking the messenger, try, for once, to critically question the actual content being provided.
LikeLike
Research officer implies you work for the goverment or an academic institution which is exactly the bias I am talking about. I notice you didn’t state what organization you represent or are you currently consulting?
LikeLike
Thanks for letting my readers get a good idea of you. Academic institutes bias? I have a better idea of what you consider quality information. Clearly it isn’t peer-review as this is typically done by academics. I’m an employee for a Melbou rne university. My focus is environmental monitoring, covering analytical chemistry, ecosystem function and climate change. All of this is available on NewAnthro should you care to look and again is a distraction.
Fault the content in the unlikely case it is wrong and expose my “bias” by simply being an employee of a University.
LikeLike
I didn’t say it was a negative bias but as you are cited in an article as a source I wanted to know what kind of source you are. I now have that information. Thank you.
LikeLike
I endeavour to be honest, transparent and ever seeking solid empirical evidence to base my reality model upon. Online I place these up as a test on NewAnthro. Typically those whom disagree seek me out rather than the models I formulate, thereby providing nothing to my efforts. I’m ever happy for my articles to be tested and am unafraid of being wrong – that simply improves my understanding.
Which source is citing me? Remebering of course a blog is not the same thing as primary sourced information, as much as I attempt to represent such honestly.
LikeLike
Also, bias is simply bias. There is no way it is ever of value. I tend towards high quality information and nothing more. That isn’t bias, but simply an unwillingness to be credulous.
LikeLike
Dear Moth,
It’s about time that someone discovered your true purpose in trying to poison people with your rational arguments and scientific facts. I think I need to consult my healing crystals and go and have some acupuncture and Reiki.(Smiley face). It’s obvious that your chakras are out of alignment.
Honestly Moth, don’t you know anything about the body’s natural energy systems? Remember the good old days when normal life span was about 40 -60 years of age. That was when fluoride killed everyone – they all went mad with Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, wilting hydrangeas, stained underwear and – those unsightly and embarrassing white stained teeth caused fluorosis in about 4-7 percent of the population. I would rather see see a mouth full of holes and decay than this travesty of human rights. Ahhh, them were the days!
Thank you for your rational replies to these fringe elements of reason. AlI have left is sarcasm! Keep up the good fight. Your words are inspirational and you speak for the silent yet often apathetic majority.
LikeLike
“It’s obvious that your chakras are out of alignment.”
Lol! Thanks for that! Personally I’d prefer good blood flow through my brain than unmeasurable energy through my chakras any day of the week!
But, for the most part, I’ve had similar comments on here that were actually serious!
Stay tuned; I’ve got plenty more to follow and if you hear of Merilyn Haines making waves – let me know and I will do what I can to follow it up!
LikeLike