tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post4242911602615172386..comments2024-03-21T05:34:08.220+13:00Comments on Dunne's Weekly: Dunne Speakshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03633350477245086129noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-59486902365731199962016-05-04T14:14:53.143+12:002016-05-04T14:14:53.143+12:00Phil, the ONLY sensible way to interpret that tira...Phil, the ONLY sensible way to interpret that tirade is that you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim.<br /><br />Why am I not surprised?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-90883515870786402502016-05-04T14:11:50.666+12:002016-05-04T14:11:50.666+12:00There is no point giving you credible data, becaus...There is no point giving you credible data, because you are well known for saying everything against fluoride is not credible. You go out of your way to trash any data that disagrees with you, but the fact remains, there is plenty of factual evidence against adding fluoride, and that your skin adsorbs most things put on it. I can see that you would of course find data that says fluoride is not adsorbed, and I feel certain the data was created by pro fluoride assholes. <br />And don't you dare say this is an excuse - the reality is that I can no longer be bothered with your arrogant selfish closed minded attitude.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15775190842108499968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-45770649987812924492016-05-04T13:59:17.255+12:002016-05-04T13:59:17.255+12:00Phil - you claim:
"You also don't unders...Phil - you claim:<br /><br />"You also don't understand that your skin absorbs fluoride, and everything else in water."<br /><br />Care to support that with credible citations? My reading of the scientific literature indicates this is not the case for fluoride.<br /><br />But, as always my mind is open to evidence. in fact I would welcome anything you can provide (as long as it is credible). Here is you chance to get me to change my mind. :-)Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-41196217644695930252016-05-04T13:25:45.968+12:002016-05-04T13:25:45.968+12:00Phil, the main mode of action for existing teeth i...Phil, the main mode of action for existing teeth is the surface reaction arising from the presence of fluoride, phosphate and calcium in saliva. Water fluoridation is a very effective way of maintaining that concentration during the day (it declines relatively rapidly so that the benefits of twice daily brushing are not sufficient and water fluoridation complements tooth brushing for that reason.<br /><br />Ingested fluoride also helps during the early stages of tooth formation - even before eruption. It is also beneficial to bones.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-23958146175498192172016-05-04T13:20:47.462+12:002016-05-04T13:20:47.462+12:00Phil, I find your attitude towards democratic deci...Phil, I find your attitude towards democratic decisions rather troubling. Do you think the current government should not have been allowed to come to power on the basis of the last election results?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-81489056091325422712016-05-04T13:18:28.899+12:002016-05-04T13:18:28.899+12:00Phil, water fluoridation is not a medicine. This f...Phil, water fluoridation is not a medicine. This from the 2014 High Court judgment on that:<br /><br />“ the concentration threshold for fluoride in Schedule 1 of the Regulations is so vastly higher than the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in domestic water supplies that, when fluoride is added to domestic water at the authorised levels, it falls outside of the definition of “medicine” in the Act.” <br /><br />Think about it. If fluoride were designated a medicine because of its beneficial role in oral health then the law would also be required to designate iodine in salt, selenium in bread, iron in meat, calcium in milk, etc., as medicines. That would be silly. We have quite a number of beneficial elements in our diet and we don’t call them medicines.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-53840267760902079442016-05-04T12:58:26.983+12:002016-05-04T12:58:26.983+12:00Mr Dunne, CONSENT is one of the fundamental things...Mr Dunne, CONSENT is one of the fundamental things in this society, and the government must NOT do anything to violate what people choose to put into and onto their bodies (fluoride absrbs through the skin in the bath and shower). Water fluoridation is a disgusting violation of everyone's right to choose. Just because a court decided fluoride was not a medication, does not mean it is not a medication. By advocating mandatory flurodation, you are allowing a medical organisation to force people to ingest an unnecessary medication, therefore violating the law that gives us the right to choose.<br />It is beyond me how any intelligent person would want to do that.<br />Pleas also look at the INDIVIDUAL DHB data about tooth decay rates. Many DHB areas have better teeth for most people in UNfluoridated areas. Simply forcing it on everyone is just plain STUPID and selfish, and those areas DON'T NEED IT. <br />Please Mr Dunne, do NOT allow DHB's to force this medication on everyone. As I have said before, everyone can brush their teeth, and if the DHB's identify groups that need help, tell them to get off their asses, go out to those people, and give them toothpaste and brushes. THAT is acceptable to everyone, but forcing this muck on everyone is not OK, not now, not ever.<br />(Ken, don't reply to this, as it is not addressed to you)Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15775190842108499968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-48230404933961612642016-05-04T12:38:21.117+12:002016-05-04T12:38:21.117+12:00Ken, fluoride IS a medicine. It is promoted by the...Ken, fluoride IS a medicine. It is promoted by the MoH, DHB's doctors, World Health Org, etc, meaning it IS a medicine. There is NO non medical organisation that promotes fluoridation. Because ONLY medical people endorse fluoride, that makes it 100% a medication, as its only alleged benefit is MEDICAL.<br />As for choice to remove, only an idiot will say you can remove it. While a filter reduces the fluoride, it cannot remove it fully, and why the hell should anyone pay to get rid of something that is not a human nutrient. If you think it is, you are a bigger twat that most people think you are. <br />You also don't understand that your skin absorbs fluoride, and everything else in water, and getting a whole house filter is outrageously expensive.<br />You say individual action is not required. That has to be the stupidest excuse I have ever heard in this debate. The ONLY way fluoride benefits teeth is DIRECTLY ON THE TOOTH, NOT from ingesting it.<br />Apart from all that "logic" the absolute main issue here is consent. 1/3 of voters in Hamilton said NO to fluoride, which equates to about 60,000 people. I don't give a toss if that is not a majority, fluoride in Hamiltons water is violating the rights of around 60,000 people. All the rest can BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH. <br />It is absolutely beyond me how pro fluoride people can be so fucking disgusting arrogant that that cannot respect every persons right NOT TO ACCEPT MEDICAL TREATMENT. <br />Grow up Ken, get a fucking life, and stop pushing your nonsense on people who don't want your nonsense. <br />PS, I suspect that you no longer have need... you did mention you were old...<br />Oh, and iodene in salt is a choice, and selenium in bread is just a fucking waste of time and effort. It to does NOTHING... Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15775190842108499968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-43806345850252648332016-05-04T12:00:17.022+12:002016-05-04T12:00:17.022+12:00Erin, fluoride is no more a medicine than iodine, ...Erin, fluoride is no more a medicine than iodine, calcium, magnesium, phosphate, or any other beneficial element.<br /><br />You still have freedom of choice to remove the fluoride if the rest of your community supports community water fluoridation. Many people with a hangup about fluoride, chlorine, etc., already use the appropriate tap filters.<br /><br />Community water fluoridation is proven to be safe and effective. as a social policy it means that individual action is not required.<br /><br />Just as is the case with iodine in salt and selenium in bread.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-22258019498287791232016-05-04T11:48:52.903+12:002016-05-04T11:48:52.903+12:00If people don't want to be medicated with some...If people don't want to be medicated with something, it's unethical to force it on them. Doesn't matter how you spin the (erroneous) benefits. My body, my choice. End of story. Keep it out of our water. There are plenty of ways people can cheaply and easily access the stuff if they want it.Erinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16386652859733754952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-18478808645878305242016-05-01T22:25:14.750+12:002016-05-01T22:25:14.750+12:00There have been deaths from fluoride. My truth is,...There have been deaths from fluoride. My truth is, if I don't want to drink it, I shouldn't have to. If you would like to ingest fluoride you can. Don't make me.<br />http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/death-by-fluoride.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18091252062488512742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-67563519869400051132016-04-23T21:31:39.820+12:002016-04-23T21:31:39.820+12:00Speedy, that is a cop-out. You have refused to tak...Speedy, that is a cop-out. You have refused to take issue with example I have given you where FFNZ and FAN have misrepresented or distorted the science.<br /><br />I can only assume that you are unable to. Yet you are the one who asked for evidence and implied there was none.<br /><br />All I have done is called your bluff. Provided you with examples and evidence. It is not my fault that you are unable to find fault with my examples.<br /><br />Hopefully you will take this as a lesson and stop accepting what these organisations say.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-68869332549166654072016-04-23T20:57:32.497+12:002016-04-23T20:57:32.497+12:00Clever Ken. I'm new to this blog, but I do not...Clever Ken. I'm new to this blog, but I do notice that you have an answer for everything. Mr know it all. Such wit and so cunning. You truly are amazing. I rest my case because you have proved nothing. You should get into politics mate. You know what they say about politicians. Speedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590601589056640471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-38813857481222801692016-04-23T19:06:01.190+12:002016-04-23T19:06:01.190+12:00Fine, Speedy. You ask for evidence, I provided it....Fine, Speedy. You ask for evidence, I provided it. I realise it might be overwhelming because the examples of misrepresentation are so numerous.<br /><br />And your point about statistics is so true. Paul Connett really does mangle statistics.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-38445103885808659192016-04-23T18:49:10.214+12:002016-04-23T18:49:10.214+12:00Ken, I honestly don't have the time to go and ...Ken, I honestly don't have the time to go and read all the links you provided, but thanks all the same. I'm sure there are misrepresentations on both sides of this debate. I'm also very wary about findings of studies making certain claims. I always ask who funded the study, was it independent. It's amazing what you can do with statistics to produce the outcome the sponsor of the study wanted. It's the oldest trick in the book.Speedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590601589056640471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-5076888811054638352016-04-23T15:47:09.409+12:002016-04-23T15:47:09.409+12:00Speedy, I should add that there are more articles ...Speedy, I should add that there are more articles - and another one coming up in a few days about the latest misrepresentations by Stan Litras on IQ.<br /><br />I don't know how these people can sleep straight in their beds at night. :-)Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-20017756599541058782016-04-23T15:41:15.433+12:002016-04-23T15:41:15.433+12:00Speedy, I will gladly produce evidence - it ranges...Speedy, I will gladly produce evidence - it ranges over several years and I have often written of their misrepresentations and distortions in my articles:<br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/<br /><br />But here are just a few of the more recent ones - I am happy to discuss the specifics for individual cases. The lesson is - never take their claims at face values - always check them out. On most case you will fiond them wrong:<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/anti-fluoridationists-misrepresent-new-dental-date-for-new-zealand-children/<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/a-challenge-to-anti-fluoridationers-to-justify-their-misrepresentation-of-new-zealand-research/<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/anti-fluoridationists-now-scaremonger-about-silica-in-your-drinking-water/<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/anti-fluoridation-cherry-pickers-at-it-again/<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/anti-fluoridation-campaigner-stan-litras-misrepresents-who/<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/anti-fluoridationists-flawed-attacks-on-calgary-study/<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/yet-another-misrepresentation-of-a-dental-health-study/<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/fluoride-more-scaremongering-using-drug-warnings/<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/anti-fluoride-propagandists-get-creative-with-statistics/<br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-90899870548577311822016-04-23T15:08:09.640+12:002016-04-23T15:08:09.640+12:00Ken, the Fluoride Action Network and Fluoride Free...Ken, the Fluoride Action Network and Fluoride Free NZ groups do not put forth misinformation. They consist of knowledgable people who work tirelessly to show the misinformation that is spread by the MOH, DHB's and the corrupt FDA, AMA. Please provide proof of the misinformation disseminated by these 2 groups.Speedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590601589056640471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-72287465953026438822016-04-22T13:24:44.531+12:002016-04-22T13:24:44.531+12:00Dan - finally (I think) you ask why can't peop...Dan - finally (I think) you ask why can't people take pills as this would be more responsible.<br /><br />Social health policy would be extremely bad if it was based on individual responsibility. Just imagine how much more children would suffer.<br /><br />The fact is that CWF is a social health measure, like salt iodisation. It works because it does not rely on individual responsibility.<br /><br />And it works far better than as pill because it integrates perfectly with the mechanism whereby fluoride helps protect existing teeth as well and emerging teeth.<br /><br /><br />Yes, during the year that my council undemocratically denied me access to CWF - against the obvious wishes of the electorate - I did take individual responsibility by suing mouth washes (far more effective than pills). But this is not a credible social policy - except when carried out in schools as in Europe. It may have helped my oral health but it did not help the oral health of the city in general.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-66087391198176768652016-04-22T13:14:43.903+12:002016-04-22T13:14:43.903+12:00Dan, the old toxic waste story is extremely naive ...Dan, the old toxic waste story is extremely naive - along the same line as Hitler used fluoride to tame the Jews!<br /><br />1: A product or by product which has a market and customers is by definition not waste. On the other hand even food can become waste when it doesn't sell.<br /><br />2: Fluorosilicic acid can be a very valuable by product - particularly as fluoride ores are dwindling and fluorine is a valuable industrial chemical. In the US fluorosilicic acid can demand a higher price from the fluoride industry than the water treatment industry precisely for that reason.<br /><br />3: Even in NZ there are other markets for fluorosilicic acid. If there weren't any markets companies would just disperse it as a waste product (probably by piping it to the ocean) but would follow the required regulations in the process. That would not cost much. And you must remember this fluoridating agent is used partly because it is cheap. Companies are not making a huge fortune out of it.<br /><br />4: The suggestion that either the manufacturer, the councils, water treatment experts or health officials would contemplate community water fluoridation purely as a waste disposal method is mad in the extreme. But it is the sort of rubbish we have come to expect from anti-fluoride campaigners who are well known for their misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies.<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-61044362509259461562016-04-22T13:08:04.607+12:002016-04-22T13:08:04.607+12:00Ah Ken, you have completely ignored these 3 questi...Ah Ken, you have completely ignored these 3 questions for the third time:<br /><br />1. So do you not acknowledge that if there is even 1% doubt in a case like this it should be removed? And do you not acknowledge that there is way more than 1% doubt?<br />2. Now why can't people who insist on taking their daily dose of fluoride take individual responsibility as you state?<br />3. Do you acknowledge certain large corporations avoid expenses by having to get rid of the waste product fluoride and instead make a very nice profit from this?<br /><br />The 315 weren't to "promote as evidence that fluoride is evil" it simply shows that there's enough doubt among enough health practitioners to stop fluoridation. You are really scraping the barrel with your article about their motivations.<br /><br />Everyone has their own thing, you keep doing yours brother. I wish you lots of peace and love.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739920958855357687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-37442408080912588812016-04-22T13:04:18.318+12:002016-04-22T13:04:18.318+12:00Dan - you talk about 1% doubt - I bet you an't...Dan - you talk about 1% doubt - I bet you an't back that quantity up. :-)<br /><br />We have only advanced as a species because we have relied on the beast knowledge - knowledge that any sensible scientist will tell you is always incomplete and relative. If we had refused to move until we had 100% surety on anything we would have become extinct ages ago.<br /><br />A simple google search will indicate that there is more doubt about chloride or chlorine than there is about fluoride. There are far more hits for chloride or chlorine and toxic than there are for fluoride and toxic.<br /><br />But if you really want to worry about doubt then dihydrogen monoxide is present in your drinking water in far higher concentrations than is fluoride or chlorine. It causes far more documented deaths every year than does either chlorine or fluoride.<br /><br />So you should be demanding that dihydrogen monoxide be removed from your drinking water. After all there is far more doubt in that case.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-71861731051921225222016-04-22T12:52:45.147+12:002016-04-22T12:52:45.147+12:00Dan, here is something I wrote on the "315&qu...Dan, here is something I wrote on the "315" people who you promote as evidence that fluoride is evil:<br /><br />https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/commercial-and-ideological-support-of-anti-fluoride-activity/<br /><br />It shows the ideological and commercial motivations behind these people - most of whom belong to very questionable alternative health areas - and profit from such woo.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-27166986244910342952016-04-22T12:48:39.435+12:002016-04-22T12:48:39.435+12:00Dan, my little dig about FFNZ "making a profi...Dan, my little dig about FFNZ "making a profit" on water filters was based on an arrangement they had last year promoting a particular brand of water filter. They got a $50 (I think) kick-back for each filter sold and were encouraging readers to purchase them.<br /><br />For obvious reason, many filter retailers reproduce and promote the lies told by anti-fluoride organisations like FFNZ and FAN. No surprise there.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8080216660046417151.post-65789110994773831312016-04-22T12:41:15.855+12:002016-04-22T12:41:15.855+12:00Dan, I will respond in separate small posts - easi...Dan, I will respond in separate small posts - easier for readers. :-)<br /><br />First, your claim I am being paid for my comments here. You say:<br /><br />""They", let's call them pro-fluoride lobbyists, I assume you get paid for the work that you do? It seems you spend an awful lot of time on this."<br /><br />Well, doesn't this show the danger of assuming things. No evidence required. A very lazy way of thinking.<br /><br />No, I am not being paid by anyone (except my superannuation fund). I am in the fortunate position of not having anyone to to dictate how I should think or what I should do (Unlike Paul Connett and his family whose funding by Mercola.com is well documented in IRS returns).<br /><br />My activity on this question (and things like climate change and creationism) derives from my scientific ethos, interest's and career background, and my need to challenge distortions that are peddled by activists in these areas. <br /><br />Yes, I think community water fluoridation is a sensible social policy - but its adoption is up to communities. That is not what drives me.<br /><br />I am particularly annoyed when communities, like Hamilton in 2013, were denied that right by a council fooled by anti-fluoride activists. That is a violation of democracy.<br /><br />I am also annoyed when people like these peddle absolute lies about the science. Integrity in science is a very important issue to me. <br /><br />Those are my motivations and a little effort on your part would have revealed that to you (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/about-me/) rather than having to rely on your "assumptions" which the record here shows to be very faulty.<br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862838270590369643noreply@blogger.com