Anti-science arguments: How do we respond?

I’ve been very interesting with the problem of responding to anti-science. This is mostly due to the frustration that arises from taking them seriously only to be subjected to a cheap magic show rich with fallacious arguments. Diethelm and McKee (2009) provide excellent examples, including;

“The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules.”

In seeking out certainty in reality, this objection to the best developed tools for obtaining high quality empirical data remains baffling. Moreover, anti-science provides no serious alternative, but instead dynamite to the dam walled placed up against the baseless ideation popular prior to the enlightenment.

Of course ignoring anti-science outright is not the answer as the anti-fluoridation campaign illustrates; while in essence it is fringe and largely based upon “Nazi chemical mind control” fears, packaged right, it has the power to infiltrate communities, leading to a decrease in dental health with no additional benefits, as has been witnessed in various towns in Queensland, Portland, Oregon and elsewhere.

We need to respond.

However, as Christopher Monckton illustrated with climate change, taking them seriously comes with the inherent risk of lending undue credit; he is now regarded as an “expert” in some quarters due solely to the fact that he has publicly debated with scientists and seemed to have won. That his waves failed to reach the shores of scientific endeavour is telling nonetheless.

What to do?

Recently, I analysed the components of an anti-science speech to show how it does not aligned within the same arena of critical thought to scientific methodology and thus presents a sideshow distraction rather than a rebuttal. Yet, what to do with a wordplay debate?

I provided the following basic questions to use to assess the quality of someone’s argument;

  1. Does the article in question refer solely to genuine scientific material?
  2. Does this material genuinely bring into question the validity of given conclusions held in the highest certainty within the scientific community?
  3. What have other genuine scientific material made of this conclusion?

Here, I will look at the comments of “Dan” who is an individual I’ve spotted haunting both NewAnthro and Watching the Deniers of late to give some suggestions.

Dan’s Stand

Dan takes an anti-science approach to climate science. This is not to poison the well, but a factual stances he must admit to simply because his position rejects the standing position held with high confidence within the scientific community, namely, he rejects the conclusion that CO2 can impact on the global climate.

His argument hinges on looking at the global temperature anomaly and atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1800 to today. He claims that no warming in the global temperature anomaly exists beyond 2001 while concentrations of CO2 continue to increase, which he uses to base his position.

His argument against the standing position within the expert community of climate science hinges on a quote he found on Wikipedia by, Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet, which is critical of the peer review process.

The Analysis

To answer the three questions above;

  1. No; Dan refers to Wikipedia and his own blog posts.

It fails on step one. Furthermore, rather than illustrating how the conclusions drawn within climate science are wrong, he instead attacks the review process. Yet, if the science is wrong and he knows it is, he should be able to illustrate as much, for the validity of a conclusion does not sit on the opinions of people, but on the merit of the finding. His argument does not challenge the the scientific conclusion itself.

Mainly, he relies on three fallacies; the single cause, composition and authority.

Eddy Covariance: one way to obtain data on latent energy. My old site at Calperum, SA
Eddy Covariance: one way to obtain data on latent heat. My old site at Calperum, SA

Just as you wouldn’t attempt to measure the volume of a pool by a sole measurement of the depth of the shallow end, it is a failure of understanding to assume that climate change is restricted to the temperature anomaly.

Add energy to a pot of water and the temperature will increase. Eventually, around 100°C, the rate of temperature will reduce, even if the energy input continues. This is because the energy is now going into a physical process not measured by a thermometer; the conversion of liquid to gas.

Climate change is dynamic, with energy going into the atmosphere, but also the oceans and ice, leading to latent heat; ice melt and water vapour, both ignored by thermometers, but measured by other methodologies, such as physical measuring and eddy covariance measurements respectively.

His quote also assumes that, as one person in a health journal is critical of peer review, we have evidence enough that the entire process is flawed. The quote itself is somewhat fallacious – ad populum – and how it is applied is fallacious through authority and composition.

As previously noted, rather than fault the conclusions, he attempts to fault the entire scientific process with this one small quote.

How to respond?

I know first-hand that pointing out these faults do nothing to the argument being presented – shifting goalposts may be applied or semantics may come into the debate, alongside repetition of the same fallacious claims. Eventually, the moral high ground will come up and your efforts will have been a waste as the individual goes on to continue the same debunked claims elsewhere unmoved by your exchange.

It may be useful to respond concisely;

Do the following claims by Dan seriously challenge climate science?

“No warming over the past decade while CO2 levels increase…” – No; warming is only one part of climate change, with energy also being taken up in processes not measured by thermometers, eg. latent heat.

“Richard Horten says peer review doesn’t work…” – No; in no way does this even critique the empirical evidence base for anthropogenic climate change, but is a fallacy of composition based upon appeals to authority, serving no purpose but to subvert critical reflection of the evidence base at hand.

Otherwise, praise the commentator on their prowess and let them know how much you’re looking forward to their radical findings overturning modern science as we know it – surely they will receive their much owed Nobel Prize once their ground breaking research is published in a respected science journal. After that, walk on.

You can waste your life replying to nonsense – fiction is limited only by imagination and our species is capable of many generations worth of imagination. Or less eloquently put;



Ignoratio elenchi: when anti-science argues that 2+2=5

It’s a trick that works wonderfully on an uncritical mind. In the analysis of anti-science communication, we saw how much of the case brought against fluoride was irrelevant to its safe or ability to reduce tooth decay.

Over the past few days of silence, I’ve noticed a lot of traffic towards fluoride and so searched the news for the latest activity in the anti-fluoridation world only to spot a few new cases ignoratio elenchi; that is, making one case and insisting another conclusion.

A faceless sleight of hand

One article in the North West Star, Water board worker’s fluoride fears, paints the entire discussion in Mt Isa regarding water fluoridation inappropriately… “safety concerns surrounding the substance continue to grow.”

In essence the article is bias. It is not an argument against the safety of fluoride in water (it dissolved completely, with fluoride becoming free ionic fluoride), nor is it anything related to how well fluoride works to prevent tooth decay. The main argument against fluoridation is about safe handling!

There are numerous industries where workers face hazards – in fact most jobs have need for Operational Health and Safety policies (OH&S) and risk assessments. I’ve have to create a number myself for my roles. This doesn’t automatically deem to job better left undone – imagine what would happen if we deems sewerage plants too unsafe – but rather that safe measures need to be in place to ensure safe working environments for all involved.

This unnamed employee at best argues that more rigorous OH&S and risk assessments need to be undertaken if current practices are not good enough. Take a leaf out of the book of any given water authority in the capitals cities of the other states, which have all safely administered fluoride to water supplies for decades!

Interestingly, the vote in Mt Isa drew less than 10% of the locals out, most of which chose “no”. While the anti-fluoride campaign would consider this a success, I see it differently. I think the only people who voted are those who have strong opinions on the subject. The rest reflect disinterest or simply being unaware of the subject. With such bad reporting and the high level of public engagement by anti-fluoride groups in Qld, sprout bogus claims to incite fear, it’s not surprising that “no” was the majority call from such a small group.

White with… sugar?

I also noticed a spike in articles, with a tabloid “shock” flair to them, reporting on fluoride levels in tea – as those this was something new.

I can refer to a paper that’s 17yrs old that illustrates these reporters are pretty slow to catch on.

Furthermore, this does not question the safety or efficacy of water fluoridation. It raises valid concerns about the quality of a product that in turn may lead to a consumer having higher than recommended intakes of fluoride. The cheap product may not be living up to desired consumer safety guidelines in Australia and so merits further discussions, but not water fluoridation itself.


Just as with climate change denial, the argument is never really challenging the science that these anti-science communicators pretend to challenge, but rather confuse, distort and attempt to win an argument on ignorance and typical fallacies.

Three simple questions are useful when presented with such arguments;

      1. Does the article in question refer solely to genuine scientific material? (if so – check the source).
      2. Does this material genuinely bring into question the validity of given conclusions held in the highest certainty within the scientific community? (this is not, as seen above, to take the report’s “word of it” but to look at the source in relation to the key points – eg, fluoride; safe and effective in current practices in affluent communities / climate change; happening and due to human activity etc)*
      3. What have other genuine scientific material made of this conclusion? (ie. check where the paper has been cited and how it was cited)

Quality information is only sourced through scientific investigation, just as much as you learn mechanics from engineers, not in a pastry kitchen. If the report fails to cite scientific literature, ignore it. If the literature doesn’t back up the claims, ignore the claims. If the paper is old and/or brought into question on its methodologies / results and/or in a little known paper and not cited elsewhere, ignore it.

Quick and simple steps to avoid the woolly blindfold.

Read more: Anti-Science Communication: It does not deserve to be placed with non-fiction

* Two examples of checking what the actual scientific literature says can be provided in reply to the osteosarcoma claim and IQ claim which I have previously debunked.

Trolling, trolling, trolling, through the streams we’re trolling!

Earlier today, my self-editing let me down. I had an idea yesterday afternoon, which I put together on the WP app on my phone as I took public transport home. Only, I made a mistake…

I completely ignored grams and jumped straight to kilograms, thus being a magnitude out. Mea culpa…

The funny thing is, this was spotted and brought to my attention by an anti-fluoride advocate with one of the most interesting screen names I’ve came across; AnInconvenientTooth (I wish I’d thought of it).

As I mentioned the other day, I’m not going to allow anti-fluoride comments any more because none of them actually respond to the article they comment on. They instead make bogus claims on other arguments that I’ve commented on previously and go silent when I bring this to their attention. I actually did let one more comment go through and was disappointed to learn that I’d been duped again by someone clearly uninterested in critical reasoning.

Anyway, I’m happy to be wrong – lest I live in error!

I’m also happy because this character proved a point to me; clearly my arguments on fluoride are correct. Within hours of making a silly mistake, it was brought to my attention, so obviously the anti-fluoride advocates are paying attention (which is also suggested by the comment stream and my site traffic stats).

Of course, AnInconvenientTooth went on to provide the “truth” that is inconveniently wrong (Fluoride Alert making many of the debunked anti-fluoride claims), just like all the supposed “gates” behind typos in the fourth IPCC report. It’s inflating minor errors to be all inclusive like lacquer on the insulated walls in the echo chamber.

As they say; no news is good news.

How does anti-science communication stand up to analysis?

In the post, Anti-science communication: It does not deserve to be place with non-fiction, I discussed the three distinct levels to science communication:

    • Science journals within the expert community who are able to critique methodology and data to assign appropriate certainty to a given conclusion; ie. the peer-review process; that is, “define it?”
    • Specific science communication which comes from writers with some level of understanding of the given topic and are able to translate that so that the basics are understood by a wider audience, without opinion; that is, “what is it?”
    • Lastly general science communication which tends to attract communicators with understanding in other fields who provide commentary and opinion on this knowledge into a broader context; that is, “how does it understanding affect me?”

Anti-science can only fit on the third level, because they 1) focus on opinion and values, 2) by their sheer nature, challenge the science (so clearly cannot be translating it) and, 3) do not present their “evidence” within the peer-review process (so obviously not at the top level).

Yet every single one of them pretend to sit in the middle level and try to suggest they in fact challenge to upper level! If you doubt me, just read the posts and comments on such blogs as WUWT, where you will find over-confident assertions regarding the science and how it actually competes with the expert based certainty the public is provided from scientific methodology.

So here, I wish to present an actual example of this behaviour within anti-science communication, from the sub-species, Chemica m. fluoride, to show not only that it is focused on values and opinions, but also how it differs from pro-science communication on the third level of science communication.

Luckily the creators of Fire Water have provided a transcript of the Merilyn Haines interview, which I have previously discussed.

This, I downloaded to analyse.


There were roughly 250 sentences spoken in reply to the interviewer by Ms Haines which I was able to separate into the following three categories; neutral, opinion and scientific.


These were sentences that in themselves presented no real arguments for or against fluoridation. These include her own background information, the story of her sister’s experience in Townsville (excluding the conclusions Ms Haines drew to this story), her discussion of the production process of fluoridation chemicals and fumigation of foods with fluoride.

The latter two may initially seem part of her case, however, how the chemicals are produced does not question whether or not fluoridation is effective or safe to use, nor does the fumigation process. They are provided to “poison the well” and so could be placed into the opinion category, but due to the fact they are really do not add anything to the core argument they must be considered neutral.

Equally, the story of her sister’s experience may seem part of her argument, but it is in fact irrelevant. It is dressed up as anecdotal evidence, which does not in itself provide a case at all, however it proves nothing other than her sister experiences a skin irritation when she moved to a different city / climate and seeing as she has been exposed to fluoride throughout her life through other sources, it is unlikely to be the cause. Therefore it is neutral.


These sentences covered a broad range, including;

  • Begging the question; eg. “What is it doing in the rest of the body?”
  • Argumentum ad populum; eg. “I think there are so many people out there who are now becoming aware of the harm of water fluoridation.”
  • Fallacy of the single cause; eg. “there is a tiny amount of fluoride in breast milk. So, nature’s actually trying to keep babies away from fluoride.”
  • Conspiracy theory ideation; eg. “…what the government was trying to do to us…” “…the Australian public have been deliberately misled…” and “…I wonder what the real agenda is…”
  • As well as relevant incidents of poisoning the well; eg. beginning with, “I very quickly realised what a con it was. It didn’t work, it’s a poison.”

Apart from these fallacies, conclusions, statements and suggestions based on the belief that the argument is sounds must also be placed as opinion, as the argument is not actually made. Thus stating that fluoridation is ineffective repeatedly and suggesting actions that people should take to avoid it must be considered opinion based.

Equally, the sentences criticizing the NHMRC report must also be opinion as she offers no faults in the findings of the report, only what she felt it lacked.


This covered sentences where Ms Haines discussed genuine scientific material and surveys; Bassin et al. (2006), Australian adult and children dental health surveys and a statement from ADA in 2006 regarding infants and fluoridated water.

Which found her presentation to consist of;


More importantly, of the roughly 7% that was dedicated to the science, it represented the science poorly.

As I have discussed previously, Bassin et al (2006) found an interesting result in one test group and suggested that it would be worth further exploration to tease out whether or not this was the result of the various noted biases mentioned the study or a real result… 7 years later and we’re still waiting…

As for the surveys, the 2007 NSW children dental health survey in fact found that an additional 13% of children were completely free from caries in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas and on adult cases of osteosarcoma, the reason as to why there were such large grouping was due to the very low rates of this form of cancer. I know first hand in my attempts to acquire state level data that it could only be provided where values were above 5 people to protect against identification. One needs to group age, or gender, to analyse this data.

Obtaining the coarse, but easily accessible data, I explored this data and found that Queensland was not on the lower end of osteosarcoma rates in Australia in 2000 (with <5% having access to fluoridated water) but in fact slightly above average.

Lastly, while the advice provided by ADA in 2006 regarding reconstituted baby formula is now only available in paraphrases on anti-fluoridation websites, looking at up-to-date information from ADA, the advice does not seem as strict as is implied in this interview. They recommend exclusive breast-feeding until 6 months and if this is not possible, being mindful of the potential for developing mild fluorosis, which they state “does not affect the health of your child or the health of your child’s teeth.” (see here and here).

Of course, as the goal of anti-science media is to challenge standing scientific understanding, it can never accurately translate the body of scientific knowledge.


Pure scientific communication within the peer-review process is obviously as close to 100% within the scientific category as is humanly possible, with expert critics reviewing this media.

Equally, the second level in specific scientific communication must also aspire to close to 100% within the scientific category, yet allowing for some expert opinion where suitable (clearly identifiable in the report).

Yet, the general scientific communication is far more relaxed and with the focus on “what does it mean to me?” it allows for far greater room to be assigned to opinion and values.

Anti-science communication is restricted to this classification as it attempts to assess the third level question, typically by misinterpreting what science it refers to and expressing fear of what the alternative to their given conclusion will lead to.

In the case of the analysed interview, fear included claims of disease and disorder that are not supported by the scientific literature as well as fear of suppression of a supposed “truth” which would counter the standing scientific understanding, yet this latter fear was based entirely upon begging the question fallacies (ie. how do we know it’s bad if they won’t test it – yet what testing has been done is rejected because it did not find the desired result).

Here, I have attempted to explain why such media does not actually challenge the science and is a few steps removed from the level of scientific investigation that critically analyses data. I have done this to illuminate as to why anti-science can be rightly ignored unless it presents evidence for critical investigation within the peer-review process, and this stands up to cross-examination and that it is then translated into the second and third steps accordingly.

Otherwise, it has completely avoided the best process we have for quality control of information and ought to be weighted with appropriate, that is, little, credibility.

Another excellent resource debunking anti-fluoride myths

Ken from Open Parachute has also produced a number of debunking posts in relation to the anti-fluoridation moving that is on the move in New Zealand as well. His full work is summarised on a page he has created here.

One point he has raised a number of times that I have almost entirely ignored is the conspiracy that fluoride is added to water to keep the population in line; that it was a Nazi tool to make sheep of a community, thus too sedate to rebel against tyranny.

I didn’t mention this one because… well, should I have too? It’s beyond stupid. The mere fact that I’m actively challenging this group of anti-science as well as others is example that fluoride has had no effect on motivation. That I easily find persistent errors in the anti-fluoridation arguments equally suggests that fluoride has had no effect on my capacity to reason and evaluate information critically (that, or I would have been a super genius were it not for fluoride).

Anyway, some crackpots actually believe this nonsense, so there you go.

Ken also has a great graphic on the page. It’s the last one to the bottom, listing all the apparent impacts fluoride has on the individual. It’s an impressive list except for the fact that most of the points are simply the same one reworded. For instance;

  • On the brain: “Brain damage in unborn fetus”, “Lowers IQ”, “Memory loss”, “Kills brain cells”, and my favourite, “Makes you dumb”… aw dang it! (also “Autism”, and “Alzheimer’s Disease”)
  • And, closely related, mood: “lack of motivation”, “Apathy and permissive”, “Lowers sex drive”, “sedative”  and “Makes you docile and obedient”.

Two points padded out to twelve and the same can be said about bones or organs… Of course, no link or reference paper is cited at all when such damning evidence ought to be self-evident in places, such as Australia when one could compare Brisbane until the mid 2000’s against all other capital cities.

What gave me a chuckle was the fact that fluoride apparently “makes you dumb” and yet this graphic was one of the silliest I’ve seen on the subject.

Any way, great work Ken!

Open Parachute: Fluoridation

Anti-Science Communication: It does not deserve to be placed with non-fiction

Regardless of the chosen subject, from climate to fluoride, the anti-science community pose themselves as a credible counter-weight in the public debate. In one regard, they are correct, but certainly not how they would like you to believe them to be.

There are obvious stepping stones between science and mainstream media, each having a valuable position in public discourse.

  • The first stepping stone is clearly the peer-reviewed scientific method itself. This happens among experts on a given subject well trained to critique and re-evaluate methods and data to test their merits and thus the confidence that can be drawn to a given conclusion.
  • The next stepping stone is a passive form of science communication. This form of communication demands some level of understanding of the science and the capacity to simply convert findings into a language that can be understood to a wider audience.
  • The final stepping stone converts that information into answers responding to the question, “What does it mean to us?”This stepping stone in science communication is the least expert on the topic of science, but is valuable because such individuals are likely to have good understanding on related subjects, such as policies and politics and can place this understanding, drawn from the science into a much broader context.

Where Does Anti-Science come into it?

The anti-science community sits on this third stepping stone, dressing itself up as the middle step which they want their readers to believe actually challenges the first one!

Take for instance Chris Monckton; he talks almost exclusively about what the subject means to us. In his world view, it means a resurgence of a hidden communist party out to take over the world and kill off six people out of seven. This message he dresses with graphs that are supposed to come from the peer-review process (suggesting that he represents the second stepping stone) and somehow challenge the standing confidence in basic principles within the climate science community.

Look at Merilyn Haines; she too speaks of values. She may refer to the odd science paper, which in itself would be an ill-fitting argument, but then wraps it up in anecdotal evidence, fear propagation and inaccuracies (such as the claim that fluoridated water is toxic or that the studies have not been done). It is entirely about what fluoridation means to us, but she pretends to accurately relay the science without bias and then suggests that it somehow challenges the standing conclusions in the body of science on public health.

Take any given anti-science communicator and you will find the same thing. Values – such as control / freedom, family health, prosperity etc – dressed up with unfounded assertions about the reality of scientific understanding. This begs the reader to be convinced of the validity of a counter-conclusion – one that avoids the scrutiny of expert peer-review completely!

Challenging the Denier

For those who choose to respond, it’s a doomed action. How can one prove that Monckton’s invisible enemies do not exist? How can one prove Merilyn’s sister did not get a skin condition from washing in the fluoridated water of Townsville?

Without first proving the invisible to simply not exist at all, how can you reply to the inaccuracies of the full package, which includes their “scientific” argument, in such a way that supporters of this anti-science would re-think their position?

This is why the creationism movement has persisted for so long; because the proof of a god will remain as elusive as the orbiting teapot – how can you prove it wrong? Clever anti-scientists have realised this and so market their message on their own imaginary threat or friend and in doing so render all counter-measures mute.

What we need to remember is that their fundamental argument is not on either of the stepping stones they pretend it to be. It does not challenge the science, because it avoids the scientific process like the plague. It is not the second passive form of science communication, because it is devout to desired values and clearly does not represent the science (it means to challenge the science and so obviously cannot).

It is the third step and based on, you guessed it, anti-science; a counter-argument to unfavourable conclusions drawn within the scientific method, devoid of the same level of scrutiny.

As a movement, it has no legs. It doesn’t draw upon reasonable sources of reliable information. It is untenable, beyond all doubt. Acknowledgement of these anti-science movements for what they are is the only method to respond. We must stop thinking it’s reasonable to see fairies at the bottom of the garden when human ingenuity has all but removed any possibility of such fantasy.

Check out: How does anti-science communication stand up to analysis?

Confusing ignorance for the burden of proof: the key to successful anti-science claptrap


If it is true, where then is the evidence?

It is noble and dignified to stand firm not to an idea but the pursuit of certainty. It is humble to acknowledge the less-than completeness of our knowledge base.

Yet such an enlightened cap is too easily placed on the scalp more fitting a dunce’s cone.

Anti-science is the core kingdom of all phyla of irrationality, be it climate change “scepticism”, 911, Obama birth or moon landing truthism, creation, anti-vaccination and anti-fluoridation. A central trait of this kingdom is wilful ignorance.

Interestingly, the anti-climate-science movement has marketed itself cleverly in this regard through the tacking on of the word “scepticism” to their cause.

However, there are light years between wilful ignorance and this pretence of scepticism.

How Ignorance Differs

Whether it is the creationist demanding for the “missing link”, the climate change sceptic insisting they merely want the evidence, the anti-fluoridation advocate pleading that the science has not yet been done convincingly… whatever the anti-science angle may be; in each case the individual attempts to mask their wilful ignorance behind the burden of proof – a core scientific method.

It sounds reasonable; if the evidence is so compelling, give it to me and make me a believer.

Firstly, it is not a matter of belief, but entirely a rejection of bad belief / ideas. One accepts that all other known alternatives have been tested and found to be erroneous and thus is drawn to the pool of ideas that remain and cannot be refuted – to the best of our current knowledge.

What exposes such people for their position however is not merely that they ignore the body of scientific evidence when presented to them, not simply that they jump feverishly to the odd paper hot off the peer-reviewed press that their media outlets inform them is the “final nail in the coffin” of the given topic and not just that they continue this argument against the scientific literature completely outside of the peer-review / scientific method process; but because they do all these things simultaneously.

Choosing ignorance or to avoid scientific understanding is not scepticism of presented proof at all.

Where the Debate is Now

We have moved pass this burden in the public “debate” or better termed, conversation and are now really talking about the burden of understanding. The ball is in the court of the anti-science advocate – the burden of proof has been fulfilled – and it is not the fault of science if the enthusiast came without a racket.

Simple tests prove what greenhouse gases are and that we emit them. Only slightly more complex tests show that these greenhouse gases we emit are changing their concentration in the atmosphere. Simple tests show the world is warming. More complex tests have removed the solar or astrological radiation or other meteorological processes as the source of this change. Regardless of whether the result will be 1, 2 or 5 degrees Celsius, we are witnessing anthropogenic climate change.

Equally, the fossil record, genetics and geology all place evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Furthermore, Richard Lenski’s work and the body of ecological science have truly left the ball bouncing around the creationist’s court with their response little better than a Three Stooges slap-stick performance.

Again and again, the various phyla of anti-science prove that they have yet to critically review and illustrate fundamental lapses in the science, but rather attempt to pass off ignorance as valid scepticism of the body of evidence provided as proof.

This is what I spend my time writing about on NewAnthro. The anti-science advocate will not challenge the science, but offer another position instead as a competing idea and suggest that the science isn’t settled. In other words, it’s doubt mongering, it’s a sleight of hand designed to distract and confuse. Yet, I take their hypothesis, test it and show why it fails to provide a convincing argument and avoids the science completely.

Science is not about absolutes, but about drawing reasonable conclusions from the highest level of certainty available… with the error bars noted. The kingdom of anti-science instead doesn’t like the conclusion and would like something else to be concluded instead. And so all anti-science phyla ignore inconvenient evidence to pretend they stroll along the high road; sceptics surefooted on the burden of proof. Of course, the only proof they can accept acknowledges their conclusions and so they are walking backwards, down the road of dark age myth.

Why I will no longer approve anti-fluoride dishonesty

An excellent example of the anti-fluoride culture: Fringe, batty and quick to irrationality when given the time
An excellent example of the anti-fluoride culture: Fringe, batty and quick to irrationality when given the time

Some time ago, I had a problem with a persistent troll and a fan of his waxing lyrical on their climate change denial nonsense on my space. It proved to be irritating.

As I’m a fan of free speech, I had to do something about this parasite that, like Seymour’s plant, seemed to grow more troubling the more effort I put in; so I quarantined them. I’ve since retired that effort too as it was needless energy expenditure on my behalf.

And then the anti-fluoride trolls moved in.

Last week, I had a couple comments by such individuals awaiting approval and I just couldn’t do so. It was the same dishonest nonsense that I’ve seen time and time again.

I’ve built the anti-fluoride arguments above to make it simple not only for honest websurfers to reply to the flimsy arguments provided by the anti-fluoride movement, but also to provide a platform on which the anti-fluoride advocates can stand upon to “raise their game” should they be able to.

I did not waste this effort simply to have the same dishonest arguments graffiti subsequent posts in complete ignorance to the rebuttals I have already created.

Every single anti-fluoride advocate that has written on NewAnthro has bombastically pronounced me some variant of a “moron” and then cherry-picked their favourite “proof”. If I take the bait and play word warfare, they are only too happy to dance that dance, however if I go to the effort of providing compelling counter-arguments, rather than critiquing this reply, amazingly they go silent.

I am in contact with other communicators and I know for a fact that many of these individuals later resurface elsewhere to comment with what is pretty much a copy-and-paste equivalent to their comments here. They practice avoidance of evidence against their position with amazing tenacity.

Even Merilyn Haines dropped a stink bomb – which led to my greater efforts on the subject – only to fall mute when I’ve illustrated each of her arguments to be misleading, incorrect and cherry picked (for instance).


Rather than attempt to fault my efforts, they have simply ignored them. The anti-fluoride advocates are stuck on the insistent belief that they are right and hold no capacity to move the conversation forward and admit to fault that is so easily evident when one takes their claims seriously.

My second video on the subject made the point that they ought to be thanking me for quality controlling their arguments; if fluoridation is a problem, then I could do nothing to deny the fact – the evidence would be compelling. All I have done is remove the bad arguments that in turn weaken their position… Of course, nothing of their argument remains, hence the bile, dishonesty and ignorance I find waiting for approval.

Enough has to be enough.

The anti-fluoride advocates have shown nothing by contempt for my efforts and thus are not welcome to my comment treads.

This is not an attack on free speech as NewAnthro is all about progressing human activity based on the best quality data available; something in contradiction to their goals. Wordpress allows them to build their own soap box elsewhere to pursue that goal.

They are a fringe movement given too much weight in public discourse – amazingly expecting equal weighing for degrees in lab technology and no study history against health advocacy supported by health professionals with expertise in the field of dental and public health.

I can only afford them fair weighting.

As it stands, that means I can give them nothing. In reply to my efforts, they are vacuous and academically, they are just inert  in response to the actual question; the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation at 0.7 ppm in public water.

Breast milk is no argument against fluoridation: New Rebuttal

It is sometimes claimed that, as fluoride does not pass readily from the mother to the baby via breast milk, that this is evidence that fluoride is bad and the mother’s body is attempting to protect the baby from it. The argument is a case of comparing apples to oranges.

Today, the mortality rates of infants is dramatically lower in affluent countries than it was historically, because of many medical health improvements over the past century or so. These include, but are not limited to improvements in our understanding of hygiene, disease, physiology and medicine. Vaccination, effective soap and medicine are true modern wonders that we unfortunately take for granted being so detached from the sad history of high infant mortality.

Yet, mother’s milk was as available then as it is today. Sure, breast may be best, but it is not everything. Medical science has improved on this again.

More importantly, the anti-fluoridation advocate making this argument illustrates a lack of understanding of evolution.

Not all people were exposed to environmental fluoride all the time throughout our deep history. Equally, the teeth of our deep ancestors were likely to serve for the better part of their short lives. So there is no evolutionary pressure on the body to expose or protect the baby in relation to fluoride through breast milk. What occurs within breast milk is only the result of what the mother can create, which in turn occurs firstly due to her genetics and then nutrient availability from her diet. The most successful offspring were more likely to live and pass on those favourable genes.

If all people were exposed to high levels of fluoride all the time, but breast milk wasn’t, there would be physiological mechanisms for this, which we could describe. We have such a physiological “love-hate” relationship with sodium chloride (table salt), which the amazing loop of Henle within the kidney manages to keep balanced.

There is no such mechanisms actively regulating fluoride because there is no evolutionary pressure to do so. Milk ducts make milk. Fluoride is not milk. Furthermore, babies do not have teeth and so cannot provide a situation that could allow for evolutionary pressure anyway.

Thus the argument tries to use the mammalian method of feeding young to mean something entirely different, which has nothing to do with the safety or effectiveness of fluoride to improve dental health. It’s like claiming that we cannot swim because we breathe air!

The science is clear that when drinking water is fluoridated to WHO recommended levels, dental health is improved without health risks.

Health experts DO understand fluoride dose: New anti-fluoride rebuttal

Another fictitious claim made by anti-fluoride advocates attempts to confuse the audience about dose. Merilyn Haines, in a recent interview even went as far as to wrongly claim that health experts do not understand dosage at all!

The easiest way to understand the truth in this situation is to use a familiar substitute; paracetamol. If you had a sprained ankle and were using paracetamol for pain relief, would it be more dangerous to take 10 standard tablets right now or two every four hours over a day?

Clearly having them all at once is a higher dose and more likely to cause you harm than small amounts over a longer period. Yet this is were the anti-fluoride advocate attempts to confuse the listener; they completely ignoring the time factor.

If I were to have one milligram of fluoride over the course of an hour or two (drinking a litre of water) and do so two more times over the course of a day, this is not the same as have three milligrams of fluoride on a teaspoon right now, or to do so and again two more times over a day.

No health expert rejects that at high doses fluoride will have negative impact. Chlorine in high doses is dangerous, but in small amounts in our water it radically reduces the potential spread of disease from drinking water – something that led many generations over history to have their children go straight from the breast to beer!

In fact, everything at high enough doses can have negative health impacts. The literature – generally the only literature anti-fluoride advocates will list – has studied the potential impacts at higher levels of fluoride exposure. As the information within the NewAnthro anti-fluoride debunking list illustrates, these higher levels are not what occurs in fluoridated areas, as supported by the various health organisations, but typically the result of industrial and environmental sources in developing countries.

In the US, the recommended drinking water concentration has been lowered from a range of 0.7 – 1.2 to 0.7ppm in the acknowledgement of other sources of intake, such as toothpaste and in some foods and drinks, which has increased over time.

This is entirely an example of expert understanding of dosage.

Fluoridation of drinking water to WHO standards is proven to be safe and effective and clearly the result of health experts research and evaluation of public health and dose exposure which is adjusted over time based on quality data.