Sorry for the recent quietness. Between my new role and private life, I’m finding it very difficult to work on my articles.
For instance, previously I would quickly write out posts at home or in transit on public transport to work, proof read them in my lunch break and then set a date and time for them to go live. I just haven’t been able to find a new rhythm yet. I have two articles that have been waiting to be checked, but instead little snippet like this is just easier to get out quickly.
I’ve noticed a new trend lately.
I’ve had a number of private emails using the post submission option that, strangely, take a very similar approach.
In essence, the writer seems very enthusiastic about my work on fluoride… Except that I don’t seem to answer [insert favoured anti-f comment here]. Then, placed as the writer’s personal dilemma, I receive the challenge.
Of course, like every single infuriated anti-science advocate, from fluoride to climate change, I never receive a reply to my detailed, science rich reply… No, best to take the same rubbish elsewhere and find a more gullible audience.
Since starting to write on fluoride I’ve noticed this wave approach (and a lot of email directed traffic). I never receive one, but a series of individuals doing the same thing. Eventually it ebbs away and then the next wave taking a different approach.
With this newest one, reading the comments makes it clear that they haven’t read my work, or else they would know the answer I’m going to give. Being in private, I can’t help but wonder what they hope to achieve.
I had one ask me if my work was only a personal hypothesis or based upon an independent scientific conclusion. This makes me think they hope to catch me being candid in my private reply and say something to undermine my efforts.
On NewAnthro, I am a science and policy communicator. Occasionally, I’ll do a piece that is obviously a personal analysis and I make that very clear as well as provide all the data and methods I used.
My personal conclusions are meaningless to my audience. I might include my motivations, but I stipulate that. The reason I take this approach is because I’m frustrated with personal opinions being passed off as credible information.
Donna Laframboise’s “climate scepticism is free speech” is a good example. Merilyn Haines talking about fluoride “touching” organs or about her sister’s skin condition in Townsville are further examples.
This space is the rebuttal and I will not stoop to such factually inept levels, basically because they’ll beat me with experience at every turn and we have already experienced way too many centuries of the blind leading the blind to otherwise avoidable pain and suffering.
Quality information is our greatest weapon.