Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Charlatan "girl against flouride" finally exposed

1…1112141617…26

Comments

  • #392
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Woah, woah, woah. Back up the truck there!

    We were promised a "naked calander"

    :D

    she's a nudity fraud too! :pac:


  • #393
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Jester252 wrote: »
    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

    Fair enough . Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood.


  • #394
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


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

    Spring water has trace minerals. No??


  • #395
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    weisses wrote: »
    He is not Impartial



    Maybe he's looking after his quango

    And perhaps his generous pay packet. That would be a reason why he would put his credibility on the line, since I was asked that question. However I don't know enough about him to say one way or another


  • #396
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    robindch wrote: »
    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?

    No because he is very well paid by the government, who have been flouridating the water supply for years and would be seriously compromised if it turned out to be wrong. I didn't say that she was more or less reliable, merely that I would have to query the impartiality of someone paid by the government.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    melissak wrote: »
    I didn't say that she was more or less reliable [...]
    So you don't care whether she's reliable or not?

    Huh?


  • #398
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    melissak wrote: »
    Spring water has trace minerals. No??

    Yes and more than likely fluoride too.


  • #399
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    robindch wrote: »
    So you don't care whether she's reliable or not?

    Huh?

    It's not that I don't care, I just don't know enough to try to convince people who feel strongly about it. My point was and is that people have every right to protest something they feel strongly without other people insulting them and ramming their opinions down their throat. This is not debate, this is trying to bully people into submission and is a tactic used by weak people trying to make themselves feel strong. This is not particularly directed at you. I'm just clarifying what brought me here.


  • #400
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    weisses wrote: »
    He is not Impartial



    Maybe he's looking after his quango

    Presumably the description that he was in South Africa doing fluoride propaganda means that like is from an anti fluoride site?

    The language certainly doesn't sound impartial.


  • #401
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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...

    So the government shouldn't make checks on anything they do? Just assume it's all going swimmingly? Or maybe just advertise for impartial souls willing to work for free?


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    melissak wrote: »
    [...] trying to bully people into submission and is a tactic used by weak people trying to make themselves feel strong [...]
    You mean, like by claiming that somebody can't be trusted because he's an expert in his chosen field who's being paid by the government?

    Do you feel that teachers can't be trusted because they're paid by the government too? And what about air-traffic controllers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers? Everybody who gets any money from the government at all? Are they all potentially liars too? Is there anybody who can be trusted? Have you ever come across the term "professional ethics" or "science"?

    Or do you just distrust this one guy because he's saying something you don't like?


  • #403
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    melissak wrote: »
    It's not that I don't care, I just don't know enough to try to convince people who feel strongly about it. My point was and is that people have every right to protest something they feel strongly without other people insulting them and ramming their opinions down their throat. This is not debate, this is trying to bully people into submission and is a tactic used by weak people trying to make themselves feel strong. This is not particularly directed at you. I'm just clarifying what brought me here.

    Ah you're new here, I know, but you're after bringing a baguette to a knife fight and crying that you got cut.

    Pointing out lies and misinformation is not meant as a personal insult. nor is it bullying.

    People have every right to protest something they feel strongly about, but they don't have the right to change public health policies via misinformation and scaremongering because of their strong feelings. We have safety checks for that.


  • #404
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,858 ✭✭✭weisses


    robindch wrote: »
    You mean, like by claiming that somebody can't be trusted because he's an expert in his chosen field who's being paid by the government?

    Do you feel that teachers can't be trusted because they're paid by the government too? And what about air-traffic controllers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers? Everybody who gets any money from the government at all? Are they all potentially liars too? Is there anybody who can be trusted? Have you ever come across the term "professional ethics" or "science"?

    Or do you just distrust this one guy because he's saying something you don't like?

    Unless you ask a Teacher that is known to be in favor of certain teaching practices to investigate the usefulness of said practices


  • #405
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,858 ✭✭✭weisses


    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.

    So the fact your not posting the scientific side of the debate means you assume i have no interest in this debate

    if that's the case look into this thread

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056973983


  • #406
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    weisses wrote: »
    Unless you ask a Teacher that is known to be in favor of certain teaching practices to investigate the usefulness of said practices

    This is what I was saying.


  • #407
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Muise... wrote: »
    Ah you're new here, I know, but you're after bringing a baguette to a knife fight and crying that you got cut.

    Pointing out lies and misinformation is not meant as a personal insult. nor is it bullying.

    People have every right to protest something they feel strongly about, but they don't have the right to change public health policies via misinformation and scaremongering because of their strong feelings. We have safety checks for that.

    In my opinion they DO have the right to refuse to pay for or injest something that they believe is bad for them. I feel saying that someone is stupid because they disagree with you is insulting. As for me ,I didn't get cut, I have thick skin and enjoy a good debate..


  • #408
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    melissak wrote: »
    No because he is very well paid by the government, who have been flouridating the water supply for years and would be seriously compromised if it turned out to be wrong. I didn't say that she was more or less reliable, merely that I would have to query the impartiality of someone paid by the government.

    Pesky government again! You'd imagine that in these times of swinging cutbacks they'd be delighted to drop the flouridization thingummy and save all that cash?!?

    Feckin' government. You just can't trust them. Wonder what they're up to this time? Microchips I expect...


  • #409
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    So the government shouldn't make checks on anything they do? Just assume it's all going swimmingly? Or maybe just advertise for impartial souls willing to work for free?

    I didn't say anything of the sort. I said maybe this fact implies that he is not impartial in his views


  • #410
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    weisses wrote: »
    Unless you ask a Teacher that is known to be in favor of certain teaching practices to investigate the usefulness of said practices
    So you're saying that if the government asks scientists for advice, they should find people who have no opinion?

    So, industry makes billions out of -- random list -- toothbrushes, car safety belts, traffic lights, air traffic safety systems and anti-biotics.

    Do you think these are bad because leading scientists think they're good?

    If you're looking for a bread recipe, do you try find somebody who doesn't have an opinion?

    You're not making any sense at all.


  • #411
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    weisses wrote: »
    Unless you ask a Teacher that is known to be in favor of certain teaching practices to investigate the usefulness of said practices
    melissak wrote: »
    This is what I was saying.

    You left out the part where the investigation is read by other teacher with different opinions before it get published. And after it's publish the investigative is read by more and more teachers, who will love to point out any flaws, and regular people.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    robindch wrote: »
    You mean, like by claiming that somebody can't be trusted because he's an expert in his chosen field who's being paid by the government?

    Do you feel that teachers can't be trusted because they're paid by the government too? And what about air-traffic controllers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers? Everybody who gets any money from the government at all? Are they all potentially liars too? Is there anybody who can be trusted? Have you ever come across the term "professional ethics" or "science"?

    Or do you just distrust this one guy because he's saying something you don't like?
    I didn't say he couldn't be trusted. I said I don't know much about him. I just sait that MAYBE he is not the most impartial of peers to review something that is from the other side.....


  • #413
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    melissak wrote: »
    In my opinion they DO have the right to refuse to pay for or injest something that they believe is bad for them. I feel saying that someone is stupid because they disagree with you is insulting. As for me ,I didn't get cut, I have thick skin and enjoy a good debate..

    Peer review is not a debate.

    A good debate is not simply contradiction.

    If someone refuses to accept facts and follow logical reasoning, or does not seem to understand what these things are, then yes, I think they are stupid.


  • #414
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    melissak wrote: »
    I didn't say he couldn't be trusted. I said I don't know much about him. I just sait that MAYBE he is not the most impartial of peers to review something that is from the other side.....
    You implied that he couldn't be trusted because he has an opinion. In his case, one backed up by many years experience. I'd have said that this is reason to listen to him, instead of to ignore him.

    And I've asked you why you presumably trust people like air-traffic controllers who are also paid by the government and who also have opinions.

    Put another way - do you bring your car to a mechanic who's been working for years or somebody who thinks your car's engine is run by little goblins?


  • #415
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Muise... wrote: »
    Peer review is not a debate.

    A good debate is not simply contradiction.

    If someone refuses to accept facts and follow logical reasoning, or does not seem to understand what these things are, then yes, I think they are stupid.

    As I said I was mistaken on my post regarding peer review. I apologise if my stupidity offends you. AGAIN my point was and remains that people have a right to protest what they believe to be wrong without being personally insulted by people behind anonomous screen names. If you feel so strongly about it insult people in person or at least using your real name.


  • #416
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    robindch wrote: »
    You implied that he couldn't be trusted because he has an opinion. In his case, one backed up by many years experience. I'd have said that this is reason to listen to him, instead of to ignore him.

    And I've asked you why you presumably trust people like air-traffic controllers who are also paid by the government and who also have opinions.

    Put another way - do you bring your car to a mechanic who's been working for years or somebody who thinks your car's engine is run by little goblins?
    I bring my car to a mechanic. But he is a friend of mine so I suppose this is beside the point. I was mistaken in my assumption that a peer review implied being reviewed by impartial peers. When this was clarified I admitted my mistake and apologised to the group...


  • #417
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Jester252 wrote: »
    You left out the part where the investigation is read by other teacher with different opinions before it get published. And after it's publish the investigative is read by more and more teachers, who will love to point out any flaws, and regular people.

    You're making peer review sound a lot fluffier and more forgiving than it really is. It's something of a nightmare for most researchers. Any scientists I know hate having to go through it, but the only thing worse than peer review is is the absence of peer review and they'd never dream of trying to do away with it.


  • #418
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    melissak wrote: »
    I bring my car to a mechanic. But he is a friend of mine so I suppose this is beside the point. I was mistaken in my assumption that a peer review implied being reviewed by impartial peers. When this was clarified I admitted my mistake and apologised to the group...

    After this I merely responded to other posters to explain why I made this statement .


  • #419
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    So the government shouldn't make checks on anything they do? Just assume it's all going swimmingly? Or maybe just advertise for impartial souls willing to work for free?

    Yes that is obviously what I was saying....... I clearly think that it is all going swimmingly and people should work for free..... thank you


  • #420
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    melissak wrote: »
    I was mistaken in my assumption that a peer review implied being reviewed by impartial peers.
    Peer review is carried out by people who have topic-specific knowledge and years of experience.

    No editor is going to send out a paper on lunar geology to review to somebody who thinks the moon is made of green cheese.

    That, unfortunately, is the level of silliness of the anti-fluoride lobbyists.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sarky wrote: »
    [...] the only thing worse than peer review is is the absence of peer review and they'd never dream of trying to do away with it.
    Do you've any comments on that self-styled "environmental scientist" who published an entire book on fluoride without getting so much as a single digit reviewed?


Advertisement
Advertisement