Charlatan "girl against flouride" finally exposed

melissak · 24-02-2014 01:34PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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.

This is a fair point..... Also it personilises what might otherwise be a debate based on informed opinion rather than faces..

melissak · 24-02-2014 01:50PM

Muise... wrote: »

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.

Sorry. This is a fair argument. I am not trying to be pedantic regarding what a fact is, merely responding to what I felt was an attack on my intelligence by you by pointing out that you do not have a monopoly on truth. My point was and remains that people should refrain from personally attacking other people on this forum and then maybe we could have a BALANCED debate on a subject that is important rather than descending into pointless jeering. You don't prove a point by bullying others until they agree with you. You prove a point by respectfully debating.

melissak · 24-02-2014 01:59PM

Instead of fact I should have said informed opinions or evidence. My mistake, sorry for confusing the issue.

Jester252 · 24-02-2014 02:22PM

melissak wrote: »

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.

I don't think you understand what peer review is.

Also the whole thing just gives me another reason to despise Ming

robindch · 24-02-2014 02:24PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

[...] seems to be a vehicle for getting her face in the papers.

Still they help sales of her moronic naked calendars.

robindch · 24-02-2014 02:25PM

melissak wrote: »

[...] to my mind count as an IMPARTIAL peer reviewer.

Why? Because he's spent most of his adult life working in the area and knows a lot about it?

Or is an untrained blonde women who's willing to take off all her clothes and be photographed more reliable?

cletus van damme · 24-02-2014 02:26PM

Jester252 wrote: »

I don't think you understand what peer review is.

Also the whole thing just gives me another reason to despise Ming

how dare you despise ming

melissak · 24-02-2014 02:27PM

Jester252 wrote: »

I don't think you understand what peer review is.

Also the whole thing just gives me another reason to despise Ming

I don't actually, could you clarify it for me. I mean that it is not likely to be an impartial review by his peers in the scientific community. Excuse my lack of knowledge.

Jester252 · 24-02-2014 02:44PM

melissak wrote: »

I don't actually, could you clarify it for me. I mean that it is not likely to be an impartial review by his peers in the scientific community. Excuse my lack of knowledge.

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work. Why do you think it is not a impartial review. Why would someone risk their credibility on a paper that gives them nothing?

weisses · 24-02-2014 03:18PM

robindch wrote: »

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.

And how do you know the people i mentioned are "stupid" when you don't know the reason for their objection ?

There is also a religious consensus in Ireland .. You could call people who oppose the religious consensus "stupid" but i think that wouldn't go down very wel

weisses · 24-02-2014 03:21PM

Muise... wrote: »

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 provided you with some facts earlier in this thread care to elaborate on them ... or are you just here for cheap point scoring ?

renegademaster · 24-02-2014 03:22PM

how is she a charlatan exactly??

weisses · 24-02-2014 03:24PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work. Why do you think it is not a impartial review. Why would someone risk their credibility on a paper that gives them nothing?

Just Google Gilles-Éric Séralini

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 03:25PM

renegademaster wrote: »

how is she a charlatan exactly??

She peddles more woo and nonsense than a Victorian chemist?

Muise... · 24-02-2014 03:26PM

weisses wrote: »

I provided you with some facts earlier in this thread care to elaborate on them ... or are you just here for cheap point scoring ?

Go on so, remind me. Unless your facts are in a Hot Press article.

I Heart Internet · 24-02-2014 03:33PM

robindch wrote: »

Still they help sales of her moronic naked calendars.

Well I won't have a word said against the naked calendars. Nobody heard me mention the naked calendars! Leave the naked calendars out of this!! Let's just have the naked calendars and not the anti-flurodation nonsense.

goat2 · 24-02-2014 03:36PM

mango salsa wrote: »

I really have despaired at Irish people over the last year or two who were taken by this clueless conspiracy theorist and am delighted that she is being finally exposed. I am delighted her previous supporters are now starting to withdraw their support. Luke Ming Flanagan announced the other day he no longer supports her.

The thing that I found really really hilarious and worrying at the same time is that some of her campaign team believe the pill and plastics cause homosexuality and castor oil cures cancer.

www.geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2013/11/girl-against-fluoride-f-minus-for-effort.html?m=1

www.geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2013/11/girl-against-fluoride-vaccine.html?m=1

www.geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2013/12/fluoride-girls-creative-director-links.html?m=1

www.corkskeptics.org/2013/12/18/water-fluoridation-and-leukaemia-the-missing-connection/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7IibyOvUf1Fc0VuSmYyQTJFNTg/preview

quote from third link above
Aisling FitzGibbon, better known as the bikini clad Girl Against Fluoride, has been asked by a UK nutritionist bring legal challenge against the Irish state for fluoridating water. She's paid hundreds of Euro to receive a printed certificate that enables her to communicate with angels and redirect their rays into people and their pets. A further investment is moving her towards another printed certificate, this time in the unregulated and dubious field of nutrition. The course is ultimately run by Barbara Wren, a woman caught on camera by the BBC claiming to have cured cancer using urine and castor oil. If time allows, do give it a read. If not fret not - there's more than enough preposterous nonsense about the campaign for this post to stand on its own.

i guess it is all in the name of money for nothing, she has earned from this nonsense

weisses · 24-02-2014 03:37PM

melissak wrote: »

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.

He is not Impartial

O'Mullane was prominent at the IADR conference in South Africa in 1997. This conference seemed to lay the groundwork for the fluoridation push in South Africa. In the same year, O'Mullane's long-time associate Dr Seamus O'Hickey (Trinity College Dublin and the Irish Dept of Health) spent time in South Africa doing fluoridation propaganda and preparing the report that persuaded the government to go for mandatory fluoridation.

Maybe he's looking after his quango

robindch · 24-02-2014 03:37PM

weisses wrote: »

And how do you know the people i mentioned are "stupid" when you don't know the reason for their objection?

Everything I've read from the anti-fluoride lobby has been desperately stupid. I wish there were a better word for it, but there isn't, though there are a lot of words which describe them better.

They wilfully misrepresent data. They tell lies. They tell half the story and pretend it's the whole. They ignore vast amounts of research. And they cherry-pick tiny bits of data which they blow out of all proportion to suit their own agenda. There is virtually nothing in their glossy, expensive presentations which is either reliable or honest.

A vigorous public debate is important. And it's great that there is one. But it's appalling that one side has no problem in trotting out lie, after lie, after lie. All of which can be trivially debunked.

robindch · 24-02-2014 03:39PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Let's just have the naked calendars and not the anti-flurodation nonsense.

In the interests of balance, I'd like to offer my own svelte, sophisticated male body.

Have speedos, can travel.

weisses · 24-02-2014 03:42PM

robindch wrote: »

Everything I've read from the anti-fluoride lobby has been desperately stupid. I wish there were a better word for it, but there isn't, though there are a lot of words which describe them better.

They wilfully misrepresent data. They tell lies. They tell half the story and pretend it's the whole. They ignore vast amounts of research. And they cherry-pick tiny bits of data which they blow out of all proportion to suit their own agenda. There is virtually nothing in their glossy, expensive presentations which is either reliable or honest.

A vigorous public debate is important. And it's great that there is one. But it's appalling that one side has no problem in trotting out lie, after lie, after lie. All of which can be trivially debunked.

What you need to do is to look not at the anti fluoride lobby but Google some professionals who are opposing mass fluoridation and their reasons for it ... If you then still think they are stupid you can at least quote from them directly and defend your own argument as to why they are stupid.

Claims that fit ones agenda are made from every side of the debate

I Heart Internet · 24-02-2014 03:43PM

robindch wrote: »

In the interests of balance, I'd like to offer my own svelte, sophisticated male body.

Have speedos, can travel.

Eeeehhhh....maybe they could squeeze you into to the background of a group shot for December...maybe. "Room for a little one."

weisses · 24-02-2014 03:43PM

robindch wrote: »

In the interests of balance, I'd like to offer my own svelte, sophisticated male body.

Have speedos, can travel.

No thanks i stick with the Goodyear calender ... No offense

robindch · 24-02-2014 03:48PM

weisses wrote: »

What you need to do is to look not at the anti fluoride lobby but Google some professionals who are opposing mass fluoridation and their reasons for it

I have read them and I've assessed their reasons as stupid, where their reasons are not openly dishonest. For the reasons I've said in the previous post. There's only so much crap one can read before one gives up - holocaust denial, flat earthers, creationists, moon-hoaxers, homeopaths, fluoride-fanatics and the rest.

I would quote here if I thought you were honestly interested in learning what the scientific side of this debate is, rather than the rabble-rousing side of this debate who are more interested in pictures of young, semi-naked or fully naked blonde women.

melissak · 24-02-2014 03:48PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work. Why do you think it is not a impartial review. Why would someone risk their credibility on a paper that gives them nothing?

Because he is paid by the government to investigate flouride. Maybe I have become cynical of government of late. Again not disputing anythin but impartiality. Maybe he is right...

Jester252 · 24-02-2014 03:53PM

melissak wrote: »

Because he is paid by the government to investigate flouride. Maybe I have become cynical of government of late. Again not disputing anythin but impartiality. Maybe he is right...

but the people who reviewed the paper are not paid by the government. Also if there where any major issues with the paper it would have been blacked marked by the scientific community

Jester252 · 24-02-2014 03:53PM

weisses wrote: »

Just Google Gilles-Éric Séralini

Thanks for proving my point

Godge · 24-02-2014 03:54PM

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.

SamAK wrote: »

AARRGH I JUST WANT WATER IN MY WATER

Pure water i.e. H2O and nothing else, won't give you the trace minerals you need. Will you be taking them as supplements?

I Heart Internet · 24-02-2014 03:58PM

robindch wrote: »

I would quote here if I thought you were honestly interested in learning what the scientific side of this debate is, rather than the rabble-rousing side of this debate who are more interested in pictures of young, semi-naked or fully naked blonde women.

Woah, woah, woah. Back up the truck there!

We were promised a "naked calander"

robindch · 24-02-2014 03:59PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

We were promised a "naked calander"

As with everything from the anti-fluoride lobby, that turns out to have been a half-truth.

When will their supporters learn :rolleyes:

Charlatan "girl against flouride" finally exposed

Comments