The Ineffectiveness Question – Ken Picks Some More Cherries

24 Comments

It seems we’ve caught Ken out again, doing what he accuses his opponents of doing – i.e. cherry picking. Last time it was regarding systemic fluoride [1].

This time, he tries a new angle, focusing on an extremely narrow (even by his standards) set of examples [2].

However, he ignores a great deal more studies and a great deal more detailed arguments, as set out by other opponents of fluoridation:

> What about the so-called ‘benefits’?
> ‘Evidence’ of benefit?
> The Facts

Oh Ken, you’re funny.

Advertisements

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

24 thoughts on “The Ineffectiveness Question – Ken Picks Some More Cherries

  1. Yes Ken got caught again the other day trying to secretly join another anti-fluoride group. Now that is dishonest and stupid. Reminds me of the program “America’s Dumbest Criminals”.

    • Strange attitude as there is nothing secret about liking a Facebook page. The sinister thing is the fear of scientific input. I was blocked after commenting on the bad science behind the neurotoxicity claims. You guys really want to avoid any rational input, don’t you?

      Mind you, it helps maintain my record. No anti-fluoride group in NZ has the guts to allow comments from me and most of my scientific friends. Gutless!

      • Scientific input? Parrot, I must have asked you at least a dozen times to cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that the forced-fluoridation experiment is anything but harmful and useless, and you can never come up with anything, and neither can any of the other forced-fluoridation freaks. Scientific input is the opposite of what you are about. I can understand why people would block you from commenting, because you have nothing to say and are a complete waste of time and space, and a truly evil bastard. You are also a complete hypocrite, because you blocked me from commenting on your blog when I tried to post links to peer-reviewed journal articles, I was also blocked on your “scientific friends” Facebook page, and others have complained about the same thing.

        • We shouldn’t expect anything less from these types Dan, he & his kind are absolute criminals!

          I do need to mention that we do need to be careful and not to fall for any of their propaganda. Plz don’t just blindly go by their so-called labels. Just because they may call themselves a ‘scientist’ does not make them infallible, nor trustworthy! They can easily change results of any of their so-called study, as they see fit!
          Corruption, bribery & falsehood is certainly happening out there, esp, when it comes to money + control!!

          I 2nd that, I wouldn’t waste my time & effort neither with the parrot & his ilk, I certainly will keep well away from his garbage. I only responded to him before, so others (who are not properly informed yet), don’t just blindly fall for any of his & his ilks BS!

          People do need to think & reason for themselves and don’t just blindly trust any of those so-called experts, esp. those from the military, medical, pharmaceutical industrial complex ($$$)! The world is run by corporation btw.
          Monsanto is a big part of it.

          This is something the cabal/elite don’t like people to be, ‘independent’ & critical thinkers!
          They prefer just dumbed down workers, who just blindly follow any instructions given to them. Many people out there, are just like robots, or zombies in a way! Fluoride certainly aids in that regard, it helps to calcify the pineal gland, over time.


        • ┏━┳┳┳┓ ┏━┳━━┳┳┳┓
          ┃━┫┃┃┃ ┃┗┣┓┏┫┃┃┃
          ┃┏╋┓┃┃ ┃┏┃┃┃┃┃┃┃
          ┗┛┗━┻┛ ┗━┛┗┛┗━━┛
          Fluoridation Is Great Crime Against Humanity!

          Although there has been some increasing awareness regarding the addition of synthetic fluoride to municipal water supplies and elsewhere, it is not enough.
          ╔╗┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼╔╗┼┼┼┼╔╗┼
          ║╠══╦═╦═╦╦╣╚╦═╦═╣╚╗
          ║║║║║╬║╬║╔╣╔╣╬║║║╔╣
          ╚╩╩╩╣╔╩═╩╝╚═╩╩╩╩╩═╝
          ┼┼┼┼╚╝┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼
          The seriousness of this issue is greater than most realize. Fluoridation ranks with GMOs and tainted forced vaccinations among the great crimes against humanity.The consequence of dental fluorosis, a condition that results from the intake of too much fluoride during tooth development, is well known in the medical and dental fields. There has been plenty of exposure on the subject through written reports. Yet the American Dental Association (ADA) continues to endorse fluoride treatments.The addition of sodium fluoride to water and food also creates other more serious health problems that are not widely publicized and are even suppressed. In addition to fluorosis, independent labs and reputable researchers have linked the following health issues to daily long term intake of sodium fluoride:*Thyroid disruption — sodium fluoride affects the entire endocrine system and leads to obesity*Melatonin hormone disruption —lowers immunity to cancer, accelerates aging, and creates sleep disordersAccording to investigative journalist Christopher Bryson, author of The Fluoride Deception, getting large quantities of sodium fluoride into the water and food system was a ploy of public relations sponsored by the industries who were saddled with getting rid of their toxic material without ruining the environment. Not only did they want disposal of it to be cheap, they actually found a way to make money off it!
          ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒
          http://now.motherearthnews.com/story/health/fluoridation-is-great-crime-against-huma/50754c70637331554c65633855766651434647504b413d3d

  2. You didn’t read it, did you?

    • ‘PART TWO: The Evidence That Fluoridation Is Ineffective’, a section of your other opponent’s book [1], is far more impressive.

      [1] http://www.fluorideresearch.org/433/files/FJ2010_v43_n3_p170-173.pdf

      • Declan Waugh is a weak link who is treated as a god by the anti-fluoride activists. One of his reports was listed at the tope of the “scientific evidence” our local council relied in when they coked up their decision in fluoridation.

        Actually Connett does the same as Waugh – he is also a weak link. I brought alternative forms of fluoride treatment and ingestion to his attention in our exchange and he actually acknowledged it but attempted to divert the discussion. I am planning another post specifically on Connett’s misrepresentation of the papers reporting on what happens when fluoridation is stopped.

        By the way, despite acknowledge that misrepresentation Connett is still using those arguments. Hardly honest is he?

        What Colquhoun and others have shown is simply that the benefits of fluoride can be obtained in a number of ways besides community water fluoridation. The latter just happens to be more cost effective for larger populations.

        • Well, we never cite Waugh (can’t speak for others). We don’t know where he came from or what his real agenda is, but he doesn’t influence our views on the matter one way or another.

          As for Connett, we are unaware of any full and detailed attempt to critique his book (as he has repeatedly drawn attention to), including the aforementioned chapter relevant to this discussion; nor do we buy the argument that he has any less confidence in his arguments following his online exchange with you.

          If that were true, he wouldn’t be offering to debate any pro-fluoridation individual Israel can muster [1]. Perhaps you have overestimated your impact; or if you disagree, you are more than welcome to fly to Israel to debate the man in person to prove your own confidence on the matter.

          As for Colquhoun and others, as you argue, if they have satisfactorily proven there are other more effective and ethical ways of delivering fluoride, then water fluoridation is obviously not essential, as many advanced nations have demonstrated [2].

          [1] https://afamildura.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/doubts-surround-air-ticket-necessity/
          [2] http://fluoridealert.org/content/carlsson-interview/

          • Care to quote what part of Connett’s book ( or “the aforementioned chapter”) is relevant to my article? Specifically what papers does he quote?

            Hint, Paul and I discussed these specific papers in our exchange – – he actually agreed with me they do not “prove” what he claimed (that F is ineffective) but he still dishonestly uses them in exactly the same way.

            Paul suffers from hubris and is always offering to debate. Nevertheless he refused to take up a similar offer in Wellington and, tellingly, he never links to our own exchange.

            • Seriously Ken? We have to quote your opponent’s book for you? Probably a good idea to read it yourself kiddo 😉

              • You obviously are afraid to mention the examples as you have no confidence in them. That is the problem with confirmation bias and cherry-picking – you get caught out in the end.

                • “Paul suffers from hubris”. That’s really rich coming from you, Parrot, the world’s biggest and most arrogant hypocrite. Paul Connett probably doesn’t link to your exchange with him because he doesn’t want to waste people’s time with the huge pile of manure you came out with. Trying to conflate topical fluoride treatments, which have at least three orders of magnitude greater fluoride concentration than artificially fluoridated water and a very different mode of delivery, with forced-fluoridation is the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense you fraudsters love. The simple fact is that only a religious zealot would see any evidence of benefit from forced-fluoridation in the international dental caries trends. The marketing disguised as research studies which you lot rely on does not provide any credible evidence either.

                • Ken, stop wriggling around. I’ll even give you the page numbers, since you seem to be having trouble:

                  PART TWO: The Evidence That Fluoridation Is Ineffective
                  6. Fluoridation and Tooth Decay, 37
                  7. The Early Evidence Reexamined, 48
                  8. Key Modern Studies, 55

                  There’s plenty there for you to get hot under the collar about. You’ll find all the corresponding references in the Endnotes.

                  • My interest is in the papers cited – and if they are misrepresented. That’s what I caught Paul out on – and he conceded then attempted to change the subject.

                    Honesty is not his strongest trait.

                    • Ken, then take up Connett’s challenge, which he has made since 2010, and write a serious, scientific response to the book. Any author with something to hide wouldn’t be making that offer.

                    • I’m beginning to understand why so many people call you “The Parrot.” lol

                    • Those who do not war blinkers will have noted this is exactly what I am doing. Writing serious an detailed refutations of claims Connett makes in his book. It is telling that he was unable to defend those claims and neither are you. It is also telling that he now pretends our exchange did not happen.

                    • You seem to have delusions regarding your exchange. You were not and are not nearly as impressive as you seem to believe. Why would we all run around citing your little blog? Do it yourself.

    • Yes, you cite Waugh, an obvious weak link [1] if ever there was one (and thus easy to pick on). Then you take a single paper from Dr. John Colquhoun, who I would advise you to actually listen to (in his own words, just before he died) [2]. He would be the first to disagree with you in general.

      So the point still stands. Opponents like Connett present a far more detailed case against the supposed ‘effectiveness’ of fluoridation, with ample citations of the literature [3], and I am yet to be impressed with your case to the contrary.

      And as for Maupomé, et al (2001), all they write is, “There are, however, subtle differences in caries and caries treatment experience between children living in fluoridated and fluoridation-ended areas”. Subtle differences which could be caused by god knows what else (going by the acknowledged low quality evidence supporting fluoridation [4]) other than fluoridation, and even if it was a result of fluoridation, such a slight ‘benefit’ would not justify [5] forcing the measure upon millions without consent.

      Yes, we read your little post. And we stand by ours [6].

      [1] http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/download/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf
      [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8th-Bbb0LQ
      [3] http://www.fluorideresearch.org/433/files/FJ2010_v43_n3_p170-173.pdf
      [4] http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
      [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRVIqImvT8I
      [6] http://wp.me/p2ZRjZ-sL

      • Declan Waugh may get a little carried away sometimes, but he has done a lot of valuable work and I think you’re being too harsh. I don’t know why you would link to that appraisal of his report, because the so-called Irish Expert Body is a joke. Declan does claim proof of causation in relation to various health effects when others who are more cautious, including myself, do not, but bear in mind that there is such a thing as proof beyond reasonable doubt, and what constitutes “reasonable doubt” is open to individual interpretation. His claims are generally far more plausible than those for benefit made by the forced-fluoridation freaks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s