Is it really a reflection supporters of marriage equality or the minds of accusers themselves?

Anyway, the truth of the matter is best summed up in the “slippery slope” comic by B. Deutsch.

Bernardi, however, reminded me of earlier comments by Bernard Gaynor, reporting on the concerns of Bernard Gaynor. This inspired the following comic.

In short, fair weight favours scientific confidence of ideas.

The reason why fair weight is more just is because it values data quality.

It is good news when one hears fair weighting being undertaken within policy discussions, as is occurring in Mount Isa on the topic of fluoridation.

Ms Haines, from the Queenslanders for Safe Water, Air and Food Inc has been disappointed to learn that her opinion is given no more time than any other member of the general public.

Professional health experts, such as Brisbane Dental Hospital director Doctor Michael Foley and Queensland Health water program director Doctor Greg Jackson, on the other hand, have been given more time, in other words fair hearing based upon their expertise in evaluating the quality of relevant data.

In the interest of sound policies to increase the health of the community, it always pays to give more attention to the experts, just as most of us would heed the advice of our GP over the wives tales of our grandmothers. Sure, we can be respectful of the voice of the latter, but who is more likely to understand the human body and spent their lives in dedication to the cause of medical health?

Mount Isa City Council has done the right thing here, which is a welcome change!

Which brings me to Greens MP John Kaye. While he has “unequivocal” support for drinking water fluoridation, he fuels the fires of unreasonable doubt by pandering to the anti-science movement against fluoridation. Dr Kaye has suggested that there is a need for review over the safety of the practice.

Surely, that is the type activity that led, say, the World Health Organisation to its strong support for fluoridation or the US National Institutes of Health to the same position.

When we looks at the scientific literature, we find no compelling evidence that fluoridation of water of less than 1ppm will do harm. But it will assist dental health. Only in anecdotal evidence and in books that avoid the peer-review scrutiny do we find the contrary argument. What review is needed apart from caving in to an obvious anti-science movement?

Dr Kaye states, “I am afraid of public health consequences of dismissing concerns without responding.”

John, I have a list here of many claimed ailments that have been linked to wind farms across Australia. They range from advanced aging, decreased libido, cataracts and, most concerning; herpes. The list also includes the typical list of livestock mutilations and deformities more often left to the UFO truthers.

Should we seriously look into the potential risk of contracting herpes from a wind turbine?

There is nothing wrong with being dismissive if the idea has been tried and rejected previously time and time again. We can be dismissive of flat Earth claims as we can creationism. Likewise we can be dismissive of concerns regarding lost IQ, withered hydrangeas, wide spread fluorosis, place of origin, osteosarcoma or cancers in relation to fluoridation.

Simply, they have been tested and shown to be wrong. Fluoridation has been proven safe when applied within WHO guidelines.

Rather than calling for a review, Dr Kaye should refer concerned members of the public to such resources as WHO for further quality information. Of course, he shouldn’t be surprised if they still reject reality in favour of their desired belief.

This is one doing the rounds that came my way that I thought I should share.

However, I see it as something worse.

I’m all for the equal rights of people, regardless of race or gender, yet the progressive rights Gillard seems to promote stop short of letting one of her ministers, Penny Wong, from marrying a person she happens to love.

It’s difficult to play the progressive card when you fail, horribly, on a basic right to marry another, regardless of race or gender.

Is anyone really surprised?

For international readers, recently in Australia, a young man died after taking a legal “party” drug, which has led to questions and, at least short-term bans on such drugs.

It is the language, however, used by the media which has rubbed me up the wrong way.

These drugs are referred to as “synthetic drugs” which “mimic” the effects of LSD. Here’s an example.

Give me a break! What is the difference between these synthetic drugs and Ecstasy or meth? They are all compounds, made in some dodgy hovel, known to undo the better part of the higher faculties that make us modern humans. I may be mistaken, but I never knew Ecstasy berries grew on a bush.

Please, the odd user whom might find themselves sober long enough to feel the need to enlighten me on how natural whatever drug actually is; if it’s a pill, a fine white power or something you are very unlikely to find in nature, it’s atv the least refined and certainly not natural. “Synthetic” is a meaningless term that plays down the reality – these substances are drugs people are using to lose their better senses. What else could the term mean other than to suggest that some how these substances are softer?

Which brings me to my other point. These drugs “mimic” LSD. I’m sorry, but what’s the difference between mimicking the effects of LSD and the effects of LSD? Isn’t the point of drugs to feel the effects of it?

So, to the user, what possible difference can there be if the effects seem the same? Again, the term is meaningless and designed to soften the reality… all of which means little to the individual who recently died under a “mimic” influence.

Fluoride is no different.

Anti-fluoridation advocates list favoured papers that find links between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ, such as FAN. However, in the case of 37 papers listed by FAN, only 2 look at populations with fluoridation concentrations within the range recommended by the WHO. The rest are more than 2 to 3 times this level!

The first of these 2 papers, Lin 1991, only finds a link with children with an iodine deficiency. The second, Ding 2011 is deceptive at face value. Yet from the paper;

“Many cross-sectional studies showed that fluoride concentration in drinking water in this area [Hulunbuir City, Inner Mongolia, China] had been higher than the upper limit of 1 mg/L prescribed in Chinese Standards for Drinking Water Quality for a long period. Meanwhile, studies related to fluoride exposure in drinking water have found large number of children accompanied by dental fluorosis in this region.”

So, while the fluoride levels were lower around the study period, this has not always been the case, which is also evident in the high rates of dental fluorosis which couples with high fluoride exposure to tooth development prior to eruption.

Li et al 2009 also notes the variety of water sources in the region, including brick tea, which accounts for a wide range of fluoride exposure.

FAN themselves acknowledge the weaknesses of the various studies that they reference… only to go onto emphasise that, because they have references, all of which find some relationship and others have also suggested a relationship, there must be one!

Yes; at much higher levels of fluoride exposure!

Note what is done here; they correctly illustrate a relationship at very high levels of fluoride exposure, include a couple lower levels, which in truth DO NOT find a relationship to low level fluoride and reduced IQ, then make a small accommodation to the weakness of the approach, followed by appeals of authority of reputable scientific bodies – which are not, in themselves making the claim that fluoridation at recommended levels is a risk to intelligence.

In short, the claim of fluoridation at WHO recommended levels adversely affecting IQ IS NOT being made, but merely alluded to through overreaching and doubt-mongering. “If in doubt, leave fluoride out” or so the anti-fluoridation advocate will say, but obviously it is NOT made on reasonable doubt.

Finally, it’s worth noting that all the studies come from developing nations, which will not have the same health controls and safety practices as is the case carried out in countries such as Australia, the US or the UK. Places like China, India, Iran and Mexico are very likely to have compounding factors.

If there is a risk to IQ from WHO recommended fluoridation levels, an analysis in places like Australia would show it. My simple look at publicly available data failed to find children struggling in fluoridated areas.

__________________________________________________________

The anti-fluoridation rebuttal page now has 14 replies to different debunked anti-fluoridation claims! Each of these has a hotlink to twitter and facebook so that you can quickly post a reply, with a link to further details, in defence of evidence and sound logic.

Clearly, none.

The anti-fluoridation advocate are only too happy to point out that the fluoridation chemicals used for fluoridation of drinking water are by-products from unrelated industries, such as the manufacture of fertilisers. They also criticise fluoridation chemicals for not be the same product as the pharmaceutical grade fluorides used in toothpastes. Both these arguments prove to be real, but irrelevant.

They cannot make such claims and at the same time assume that association with commercial dental hygiene producers is a conflict of interest because the arguments are in contraction to one another. Dental hygiene products are not tied to fluoride and certainly not sourced from the same supplies as that used for drinking water fluoridation.

Moreover, commercial dental hygiene producers, if seeking profits, would prefer that drinking water fluoridation did not occur. If this were the case, it would mean that their product is the prime source for good dental health.

The unrelated process for drinking water fluoridation is actually in competition with commercial dental hygiene products, strictly speaking.

That the leading dental health expert bodies support drinking water fluoridation and even individuals associated with competition dental health products should further ones confidence in its effectiveness, NOT reduce it!