Charlatan "girl against flouride" finally exposed

melissak · 24-02-2014 12:25AM

jh79 wrote: »

So you agree that research to date show fluoridation to be perfectly safe?

To be honest I have my doubts, I have read a lot of info from both sides and I just don't know for certain to tell any of you that ye are wrong in what you obviously feel strongly about. I don't drink tap water and I object to fluoride being in the water supply, as I feel that people have the right to take it or not as it as they see fit. My reason for getting involved in this debate is that I believe that we have the right to make our own decisions on it.

melissak · 24-02-2014 12:27AM

melissak wrote: »

To be honest I have my doubts, I have read a lot of info from both sides and I just don't know for certain to tell any of you that ye are wrong in what you obviously feel strongly about. I don't drink tap water and I object to fluoride being in the water supply, as I feel that people have the right to take it or not as it as they see fit. My reason for getting involved in this debate is that I believe that we have the right to make our own decisions on it.

Research "to date" showed thalidomide, Lindane etc to be safe, till it wasn't. So I have to take what government scientists say with a pinch of salt as we have been so badly burned in the past.

melissak · 24-02-2014 12:30AM

Muise... wrote: »

The bit is bold is the problem. This isn't a difference of opinion, it is a matter of fact vs faith. So many people get up in a heap when you dismiss the sum of human knowledge as an opinion of equal validity to your belief. And if you think those of us sitting behind computers and screen names are tearing people down, try putting your arguments to the Socratic method and you'll be chasing your tail in no time.

Who's fact muise? The sum of human knowledge? I doubt that, why then don't all countries flouridate I wonder. I'm sorry I missed the memo where we all decided yours was the only version of reality that was valid

weisses · 24-02-2014 12:34AM

robindch wrote: »

Not to mention the ~200 million people in the USA who drink it all the time as well.

Waugh and his mates won't tell you about them, now will he?

There's a reason he won't.

Luckily most of Europe is more civilized and banned/stopped mass fluoridation

You of all people must appreciate the possibility of choice instead of something widely opposed being forced upon you ...

Muise... · 24-02-2014 12:36AM

melissak wrote: »

Who's fact muise? The sum of human knowledge? I doubt that, why then don't all countries flouridate I wonder. I'm sorry I missed the memo where we all decided yours was the only version of reality that was valid

Ah. There was no such memo. By "fact" I meant that which we can test and prove and revisit and adjust as better information comes in. That sort of thing.

You seem keen to confuse everything by flailing around points of discussion like a drunk aunt on the dancefloor at a wedding.

weisses · 24-02-2014 12:39AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Think of all the naturally occurring diseases, bacteria, chemicals, deadly flora and fauna that can kill you

Have we evolved to deal with them? nooope

We just use technology to beat them.. we literally cheat illness and death

They had something that dealt accurately with those diseases

http://www.uclh.org/OURSERVICES/OURHOSPITALS/RLHIM/Pages/historyofrlhim.aspx

weisses · 24-02-2014 12:43AM

Muise... wrote: »

Ah. There was no such memo. By "fact" I meant that which we can test and prove and revisit and adjust as better information comes in. That sort of thing.

You seem keen to confuse everything by flailing around points of discussion like a drunk aunt on the dancefloor at a wedding.

I posted some facts earlier in the thread ... You asked for a source ...after providing that source it became very quit from your end.

melissak · 24-02-2014 12:45AM

Muise... wrote: »

Ah. There was no such memo. By "fact" I meant that which we can test and prove and revisit and adjust as better information comes in. That sort of thing.

You seem keen to confuse everything by flailing around points of discussion like a drunk aunt on the dancefloor at a wedding.

I rather enjoy being the drunk aunt at weddings! it's fun. Why else would you go to a wedding. But that is beside the point. My original and consistant point was that the girl against flouride is entitled to her opinion, as are you, as are we all

Muise... · 24-02-2014 12:47AM

melissak wrote: »

I rather enjoy being the drunk aunt at weddings! it's fun. Why else would you go to a wedding. But that is beside the point. My original and consistant point was that the girl against flouride is entitled to her opinion, as are you, as are we all

No one disputes that she is entitled to her opinion. We dispute the information she bases her opinion on.

Nonoperational · 24-02-2014 12:51AM

melissak wrote: »

Research "to date" showed thalidomide, Lindane etc to be safe, till it wasn't. So I have to take what government scientists say with a pinch of salt as we have been so badly burned in the past.

That's such a disingenuous comparison. Thalidomide was sold for a few years in the late 1950s when we had far fewer resources to investigate somethings ability to cause harm. The FDA in the US didn't license it either because they had doubts.

Fluoride has been used for over 50 years around the world with no proper evidence of it doing any harm. Ridiculous to even put them in the same sentence.

melissak · 24-02-2014 12:51AM

And on that note I must go to bed. Goodnight to you all. I have enjoyed this debate thoroughly. Thank you all for your opinions.

melissak · 24-02-2014 12:55AM

Nonoperational wrote: »

That's such a disingenuous comparison. Thalidomide was sold for a few years in the late 1950s when we had far fewer resources to investigate somethings ability to cause harm. The FDA in the US didn't license it either because they had doubts.

Fluoride has been used for over 50 years around the world with no proper evidence of it doing any harm. Ridiculous to even put them in the same sentence.

What about lindane? thalidomide had instantly recognizable defects, some things take longer to be proven. My point is our government scientists said that it was safe and continued to allow it to be used AFTER they KNEW it to be dangerous to avoid having to admit their liability in allowing it. Disingenuous? I don't think so. If ingenuous is a word i believe my statement to be completely ingenuous

Akrasia · 24-02-2014 08:37AM

melissak wrote: »

What about lindane? thalidomide had instantly recognizable defects, some things take longer to be proven. My point is our government scientists said that it was safe and continued to allow it to be used AFTER they KNEW it to be dangerous to avoid having to admit their liability in allowing it. Disingenuous? I don't think so. If ingenuous is a word i believe my statement to be completely ingenuous

If in any debate, on one side you have pretty much the entire scientific community, and the other side you have conspiracy theorists and quacks, why would any right thinking person take the side of the quacks?

Capt'n Midnight · 24-02-2014 09:16AM

Akrasia wrote: »

If in any 60 year old debate, on one side you have pretty much the entire scientific community and evidence involving hundreds of millions of people , and the other side you have conspiracy theorists and quacks, why would any right thinking person take the side of the quacks?

fyp

melissak · 24-02-2014 11:17AM

Akrasia wrote: »

If in any debate, on one side you have pretty much the entire scientific community, and the other side you have conspiracy theorists and quacks, why would any right thinking person take the side of the quacks?

I like to keep an open mind.Again I didn't say anyones opinion on flouride was wrong or right. My concern is that so many people seem to have nothing better to do than insult this girl who believes in something strongly enough to take a public stand against something.. We could all do with taking a bit more time to decide what we believe in and stand up and be counted rather than bitching about people on the internet. Maybe then the world wouldn't be in the miserable state it now is.

P. Breathnach · 24-02-2014 11:25AM

melissak wrote: »

I like to keep an open mind.Again I didn't say anyones opinion on flouride was wrong or right. My concern is that so many people seem to have nothing better to do than insult this girl who believes in something strongly enough to take a public stand against something.. We could all do with taking a bit more time to decide what we believe in and stand up and be counted rather than bitching about people on the internet. Maybe then the world wouldn't be in the miserable state it now is.

I think that what incenses people is that she is representing herself as an expert when she is no such thing. If you want to argue from authority, you need to have some authority.

Even the header of this thread gives the basis for tackling her position: she is a charlatan.

Ray Palmer · 24-02-2014 11:32AM

melissak wrote: »

I like to keep an open mind.Again I didn't say anyones opinion on flouride was wrong or right. My concern is that so many people seem to have nothing better to do than insult this girl who believes in something strongly enough to take a public stand against something.. We could all do with taking a bit more time to decide what we believe in and stand up and be counted rather than bitching about people on the internet. Maybe then the world wouldn't be in the miserable state it now is.

What is an open mind worth if anybody can make a claim and you believe it. A non scientific theory isn't really a theory at all. It requires evidence and scientific method to make it a theory. Evidence of out come and then using this evidence you come up with a theory.

Claiming magical properties that are improvable isn't a theory but hokum. You don't have an open mind to believe this you have a vacant one.

Akrasia · 24-02-2014 11:34AM

melissak wrote: »

I like to keep an open mind.Again I didn't say anyones opinion on flouride was wrong or right. My concern is that so many people seem to have nothing better to do than insult this girl who believes in something strongly enough to take a public stand against something.. We could all do with taking a bit more time to decide what we believe in and stand up and be counted rather than bitching about people on the internet. Maybe then the world wouldn't be in the miserable state it now is.

Hold on, This woman is is spreading false and misleading information that can negatively affect other people's health.

She should not be respected for this, she should be ashamed of herself.

Obviously, I would not support hate campaigns against any individual. But she should be exposed for her false claims.

melissak · 24-02-2014 11:34AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that what incenses people is that she is representing herself as an expert when she is no such thing. If you want to argue from authority, you need to have some authority.

Even the header of this thread gives the basis for tackling her position: she is a charlatan.

Fair enough to discredit her facts if you believe them to be untrue. That is debate. I just object to people insulting her personally, that is being bitchy..

Duggy747 · 24-02-2014 11:40AM

Just because someone takes a public stand doesn't mean they should be given special treatments or be free from criticism. You bring something to the public then expect to be scrutinised.........especially when it comes to public health.

There's plenty of people who believe in something strongly enough to take a public stand against gay marriage / adoption / rights, against immigrants / general racism, etc.

If they speak publicly or believe in something strongly then they should expect some opposition, especially when they make outrageous and controversial claims.

Dravokivich · 24-02-2014 11:50AM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Just because someone takes a public stand doesn't mean they should be given special treatments or be free from criticism. You bring something to the public then expect to be scrutinised.........especially when it comes to public health.

There's plenty of people who believe in something strongly enough to take a public stand against gay marriage / adoption / rights, against immigrants / general racism, etc.

Just because they speak publicly or believe in something strongly enough doesn't mean they can be immune from criticism.

It's not criticism that MelissaK is speaking out against here, it's jeering. There's a difference between explaining why someone is wrong and calling them an idiot.

melissak · 24-02-2014 11:52AM

This is true but why not just dispute facts, I believe that if you want to personally insult someone you should at least sign your name to it. Otherwise people will be discouraged from voicing their beliefs because trolls have to much time on their hands. That's just me. It is too easy to be nasty from behind a computer. If you have something negative to contribute to someone say it to their face or at least take personal ownership of your comments... This is merely directed at people who are not offering facts but mean spirited comments disparaging other peoples character. There is nothing good to be gained from this it is beneath you all to stoop to this.....

melissak · 24-02-2014 12:13PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What is an open mind worth if anybody can make a claim and you believe it. A non scientific theory isn't really a theory at all. It requires evidence and scientific method to make it a theory. Evidence of out come and then using this evidence you come up with a theory.

Claiming magical properties that are improvable isn't a theory but hokum. You don't have an open mind to believe this you have a vacant one.

What does theory mean? As far as I understand it is not the same as fact....Many scientific theories are believed for a while and then thrown out when a more accurate theory comes along. Otherwise there would be no need for scientists at all, we would just say "that's it now, we know everything that there is to know we can stop questioning anything". That has been a dangerous position to take historically.
Anyway in my opinion a closed mind is more dangerous than a vacant one, if that is what you are suggesting that I have..

Ray Palmer · 24-02-2014 12:42PM

melissak wrote: »

What does theory mean? As far as I understand it is not the same as fact....Many scientific theories are believed for a while and then thrown out when a more accurate theory comes along. Otherwise there would be no need for scientists at all, we would just say "that's it now, we know everything that there is to know we can stop questioning anything". That has been a dangerous position to take historically.
Anyway in my opinion a closed mind is more dangerous than a vacant one, if that is what you are suggesting that I have..

Go look up theory if you don't know. Given what you just posted you don't know what it means.

Theory as used in the day to day conversation is a incorrect use as is probability and chance.

A theory is an explanation derived from evidence. Theories can be proven incorrect when more evidence appears but that is changing the information to derive a theory. Just saying a theory without any scientific evidence is not theory but a story.

weisses · 24-02-2014 12:47PM

Akrasia wrote: »

If in any debate, on one side you have pretty much the entire scientific community, and the other side you have conspiracy theorists and quacks, why would any right thinking person take the side of the quacks?

since when do you have the authority to call Doctors, professors and even Nobel prize winners who oppose Fluoridation quacks ?

melissak · 24-02-2014 01:00PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Go look up theory if you don't know. Given what you just posted you don't know what it means.

Theory as used in the day to day conversation is a incorrect use as is probability and chance.

A theory is an explanation derived from evidence. Theories can be proven incorrect when more evidence appears but that is changing the information to derive a theory. Just saying a theory without any scientific evidence is not theory but a story.

Thank you for your information. Very helpful.

Maybe I have been using the word incorrectly, this is why I asked the question. I did look it up but it seemed to have a number of different meanings.....

robindch · 24-02-2014 01:12PM

weisses wrote: »

since when do you have the authority to call Doctors, professors and even Nobel prize winners who oppose Fluoridation quacks ?

Because they ignore the scientific consensus.

People who oppose fluoridation on scientific grounds are about as stupid as historians who deny the holocaust on historical grounds.

Muise... · 24-02-2014 01:14PM

melissak wrote: »

This is true but why not just dispute facts

We try, but last night you were disputing what a fact is. I think you confused it with opinion and belief while you were shifting the goalposts all over the pitch.

I Heart Internet · 24-02-2014 01:21PM

I don't buy the anti-fluoridation arguments, but that's beside my main point -

I'm suspicious of any campaign where someone makes themselves the focus of said campaign. OK, it could have happened by accident, she started a blog and it stuck, but it seems to be a vehicle for getting her face in the papers.

melissak · 24-02-2014 01:25PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Here's a bit of something like peer review: http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/download/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf

To be fair p. Breathnach I read this peer review. Am I mistaken or is it written by Dr SEAMUS O’HICKEY, (Chairman, Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health) who's organisation has a budget of €400,000 monitoring Fluorides on behalf of the Irish government. I am not saying that he is wrong mind only that he wouldn't, to my mind count as an IMPARTIAL peer reviewer.

Charlatan "girl against flouride" finally exposed

Comments