Charlatan "girl against flouride" finally exposed

jh79

melissak wrote: »

Such little time?? I doubt that. You seem to have the opposite problem...again, hiding behind a screen name insulting people isn't big or clever..To speak to you in a language you MIGHT and this is a stretch, understand bounces off me and sticks to you. If you wish to personally insult me use your name. People are entitled to opinions. Not just you.

I haven't insulted anybody.

melissak

I didn't suggest that it was wrong, the only thing that i said against flouridation was that I have reservations regarding bottlefed babies and young children, not an issue for me as i breastfed and have well water for my kids. I clarified what I felt was the difference between naturally occurring elements and artificially added elements and said that people have a right to choose and to protest. The fact that some people here have nothing better to do than be insulting to other people for no apparent reason seems to me that it is easy to sit behind a computer behind an screen name have too much time on their hands and too much bitterness in their hearts and I feel that this is sad. maybe if they could find the integrity within themselves to say what they feel under their own names in their own lives they could be happier and wouldn't need to waste their lives being needlessly mean to other people.
Melissa Kelly

melissak

I didn't suggest that it was wrong, the only thing that i said against flouridation was that I have reservations regarding bottlefed babies and young children, not an issue for me as i breastfed and have well water for my kids. I clarified what I felt was the difference between naturally occurring elements and artificially added elements and said that people have a right to choose and to protest. The fact that some people here have nothing better to do than be insulting to other people for no apparent reason seems to me that it is easy to sit behind a computer behind an screen name have too much time on their hands and too much bitterness in their hearts and I feel that this is sad. maybe if they could find the integrity within themselves to say what they feel under their own names in their own lives they could be happier and wouldn't need to waste their lives being needlessly mean to other people.
Melissa Kelly

jh79

So who have i insulted?

enfant terrible

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

"This poison, banned by the EU in 2006, is a component of toxic waste industrial chemicals. Yet it's been pumped into our water since 1964 to reduce dental decay. This despite the fact that experts now cite that fluoride works only on the surface of your teeth. Which means drinking it to prevent tooth decay is akin to swigging sunscreen to prevent sunburn.


Furthermore, this non-biodegradable and highly corrosive acid is contaminated with a number of heavy metals, including arsenic, aluminium, lead and mercury. It is known to be a risk factor in the development of many serious health problems, including cardiovascular and neurological disease, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, chronic fatigue and depression."

(Edit; Hmmm, if the indo are hiring gullible and neurotic people to write mad crazy articles to whip up public hysteria i might drop in a CV.)

So the Irish population have been poisoned with an industrial waste product for the last 50 years.

There must be some disturbing statistics out there showing the damage done to Irish people in these five decades.

Have the anti-fluoridation lobby release these figures?

melissak

sorry jh79 that was not directed to you but to muise. I'm sorry but I'm new to boards!

melissak

My baby woke up and I had to settle him or I would have clarified this sooner. No offence to you meant.

melissak

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No we don't have to put up with what is natural in our environment.

That, after all is why we have water treatment plants in the first place.

It's also why we have houses and clothes and cooked food and use fire and medicine. We have been cheating for most of the last 1.9 million years.



http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00449046,500 years later and we still need fillings , we aren't evolving fast enough :rolleyes:


http://www.juniordentist.com/oldest-tooth-decay-caries-found-in-paleozoic-reptile-dinosaur.htmlHmmm... might take a bit longer than to evolve.

I was not putting forward an argument either way but clarifying the difference between naturally occurring and artificially added. What is natural is not within our control!!

jh79

melissak wrote: »

I was not putting forward an argument either way but clarifying the difference between naturally occurring and artificially added. What is natural is not within our control!!

The problem is there is no difference. Fluorine is an element it was discovered not created.

stimpson

Funny, I've just been reading this article in the Lancet about neurotoxicity and I come on to boards and this thread is on the front page. I've always been a bit on the fence on the debate, but this article concerns me, as it's written by actual scientists as opposed to random people on the internet.

http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laneur/PIIS1474442213702783.pdf?id=eaaSHLpQ3RqRNfSS3qZqu

A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies.

Acedia.

It's easy to understand why the crazies are against fluoridation. The whole thing is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream.

What I don't understand is why the clear-thinking, scientific type people are pro-fluoride.

It's indiscriminate mass medication by the government, who are more schoolteachers than scientists. I reckon everyone reading this thread brushes once, maybe twice a day with fluoride toothpaste. We didn't have fluoride toothpaste in the 60's, we do now.

We don't need it, I don't want it, it costs money. I'd love to opt out and get a refund. Why would anyone be in favour of it?

If we must have it why not put it in salt, sugar, flour, milk or soft drinks? In other words, something optional and avoidable. This works with vitamin D in the States.

So, why are you people so pro-fluoride? I suspect it's largely because you don't want to be associated with the new agers rather than any better reason.

melissak

jh79 wrote: »

The problem is there is no difference. Fluorine is an element it was discovered not created.

Therefore all that exists is natural. We are after all part of nature. I mean artificially introduced.

jh79

melissak wrote: »

Therefore all that exists is natural. We are after all part of nature. I mean artificially introduced.

Doesn't matter to your body what the source is . 0.7ppm is perfectly safe it doesn't matter how this figure is achieved.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Robbo wrote: »

Links plz, with quotes from those tying Waugh's "research" to their position.

Bringing science into disrepute is self publishing studies outside of your field of expertise and refusing to have them peer reviewed. Bringing science into disrepute is ignoring the basis tenets of dosimetry if it doesn't fit your pre-conceived results. Bringing science into disrepute is pretending to be behind a cause whilst promoting your own particular alternative health business. Bringing science into disrepute is organising anti-flouride sentiment in a village and then selling people on your own filtration devices for €700 a pop lest those who are left behind be ostracised.

I was refering to your comment about Waugh and shampoo (and other people who have dismissed him, who elude me now). You imply hes not credible. I am of the opinion that he is very credible because his work was used to take fluoride out of water in large areas of canada. His work is used elsewhere too im sure. There was somthing to do with new zealand and israel using his stuff too. Will look into in more detail if i need to.

One can argue about whos right or wrong. The canadian authorities for taking it out, the irish authorities for keeping it in. I am of the very strong opinion that public health policy with regards to fluoride in this country is way behind that of those canadian areas. And way behind all the other countries who have taken it out too.

What if alot of the fluoride science has been heavily influenced by big money and the chemical industry? What if yes it does help teeth but the primary reason was always just to get rid of the stuff for economic reasons?

Do you even consider this a possibility? And if not, why not?

Allot of people who do go over both sides of the argument do come to this conclusion (myself included). The pro-fluoride lobby totally rubbishes this point as being insane and impossible, yet its not insane and its entirely probable that this is the case. I do listen as much to the for as against, and the 'for' argument does not at all wash with me, not even in the slightest, even if it does prevent the odd filling.

Those communities you speak of (like west cork) have become educated on the issue and have made their own decision on the matter.

Had there been open public debate, with skeptical views allowed, and without the pro-fluoride people constantly rubbishing everything and with a neutral government which didnt religiously take one side over the other, then perhaps this wouldnt be turning into the national scandal that it is with towns and villages revolting against.

Politicians who slyly stonewall and kick to touch, an intolerant pro-fluoride lobby who wont accept any negative aspects associated, the very poor quality public debate, and somewhat suspicious lack of airtime on radio or TV considering how live an issue it is and has been for years, the ominous shadow of the chemical industry and the trail of money between them and government, the forcing of this chemical down peoples throats against their consent and often without them even knowing it was there, the doubt in peoples minds when they see most of the rest of europe(and the world!) has stopped it and we keep doing it, the various studies, reports and pieces of evidence that show some very serious correlation between fluoride and ill health.

People smell a rat, chickens are coming home to roost. No amount of beating people over the head with scientific papers is gonna work anymore.

P. Breathnach

stimpson wrote: »

Funny, I've just been reading this article in the Lancet about neurotoxicity and I come on to boards and this thread is on the front page. I've always been a bit on the fence on the debate, but this article concerns me, as it's written by actual scientists as opposed to random people on the internet.

http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laneur/PIIS1474442213702783.pdf?id=eaaSHLpQ3RqRNfSS3qZqu

A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies.

It would be helpful if the level of flourides were mentioned. The data analysed involved considerably higher levels than are to be found in artificially-flouridated public water supply in Ireland. So very high levels may be bad. That does not mean that low levels are bad.

melissak wrote: »

Therefore all that exists is natural. We are after all part of nature. I mean artificially introduced.

Interestingly, the flouride levels found in the studies in China were natural - but they had an adverse effect on brain development. But natural is good, isn't it?

P. Breathnach

Robbo wrote: »

Has Declan Waugh submitted his study for peer review yet, y'know, in the way that actual science is usually done?

If he hasn't or is unwilling to, his "analysis" may be regarded as being less reputable in terms of scientific rigour than the claims of Labaratoires Garnier or L'oreal.

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

Jonny7

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

I was refering to your comment about Waugh and shampoo (and other people who have dismissed him, who elude me now). You imply hes not credible. I am of the opinion that he is very credible because his work was used to take fluoride out of water in large areas of canada. His work is used elsewhere too im sure. There was somthing to do with new zealand and israel using his stuff too. Will look into in more detail if i need to.

One can argue about whos right or wrong. The canadian authorities for taking it out, the irish authorities for keeping it in. I am of the very strong opinion that public health policy with regards to fluoride in this country is way behind that of those canadian areas. And way behind all the other countries who have taken it out too.

What if alot of the fluoride science has been heavily influenced by big money and the chemical industry? What if yes it does help teeth but the primary reason was always just to get rid of the stuff for economic reasons?

Do you even consider this a possibility? And if not, why not?

Allot of people who do go over both sides of the argument do come to this conclusion (myself included). The pro-fluoride lobby totally rubbishes this point as being insane and impossible, yet its not insane and its entirely probable that this is the case. I do listen as much to the for as against, and the 'for' argument does not at all wash with me, not even in the slightest, even if it does prevent the odd filling.

Those communities you speak of (like west cork) have become educated on the issue and have made their own decision on the matter.

Had there been open public debate, with skeptical views allowed, and without the pro-fluoride people constantly rubbishing everything and with a neutral government which didnt religiously take one side over the other, then perhaps this wouldnt be turning into the national scandal that it is with towns and villages revolting against.

Politicians who slyly stonewall and kick to touch, an intolerant pro-fluoride lobby who wont accept any negative aspects associated, the very poor quality public debate, and somewhat suspicious lack of airtime on radio or TV considering how live an issue it is and has been for years, the ominous shadow of the chemical industry and the trail of money between them and government, the forcing of this chemical down peoples throats against their consent and often without them even knowing it was there, the doubt in peoples minds when they see most of the rest of europe(and the world!) has stopped it and we keep doing it, the various studies, reports and pieces of evidence that show some very serious correlation between fluoride and ill health.

People smell a rat, chickens are coming home to roost. No amount of beating people over the head with scientific papers is gonna work anymore.

Millions of people in this country have been drinking fluoridated water for over 50 years. With this sample size, it's a very simple process to show that the amount used in Irish water is harmful in some way.

robindch

Acedia. wrote: »

What I don't understand is why the clear-thinking, scientific type people are pro-fluoride.

Because of something called "science" which helps people distinguish accurate statements about the world, from things that are makey-uppey.

Scientific research tells us that fluoride in water, salt, milk, bread, toothpaste and other places improves dental health. And it has no significant downside.

Also, it shows that the anti-fluoride lobby's claims that fluoride causes everything from bad breath, baldness, cancer, typhoid, the collapse of the Ukrainian government, the fall of the Roman Empire and people's bums falling off, are false.

That's why. Hope you find this post useful.

robindch

Jonny7 wrote: »

Millions of people in this country have been drinking fluoridated water for over 50 years. With this sample size, it's a very simple process to show that the amount used in Irish water is harmful in some way.

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.

SamAK

AARRGH I JUST WANT WATER IN MY WATER

Muise...

melissak wrote: »

sorry jh79 that was not directed to you but to muise. I'm sorry but I'm new to boards!

OK, you're new here. Go and read the charter and if you feel I have "insulted" you by commenting that your grasp of science and reasoning could use some remedial education, report my post to a mod. Also, adopting usernames is the norm here.

melissak

I didn't say good or bad, people are part of nature and can be good or bad...again clarifying natural, which we can't do anything about with added, which we can, and that people have a right to protest whatever they feel is wrong!

melissak

Muise... wrote: »

OK, you're new here. Go and read the charter and if you feel I have "insulted" you by commenting that your grasp of science and reasoning could use some remedial education, report my post to a mod. Also, adopting usernames is the norm here.

It's ok I do not need to tell the teacher. I am not a meanspirited little girl.

Acedia.

robindch wrote: »

Scientific research tells us that fluoride in water, salt, milk, bread, toothpaste and other places improves dental health. And it has no significant downside.

Ok, that summarises the current scientific consensus. It doesn't automatically follow that putting fluoride in the water supply is the correct thing to do. There are economic and social factors to be considered as well as public health issues.

They haven't made vaccines compulsory and they actually save lives. There are reasons for that that aren't being applied to the fluoride debate, and remember, fluoride only reduces cavities, it's not a life or death issue.

Topical application of fluoride to teeth is A Good Thing. To get the population to apply fluoride to their teeth daily would be A Good Thing. But there are more ways of achieving that than mass medication via the water supply.

I can guarantee you that of they were considering launching water fluoridation now they would get nowhere. Respect for personal autonomy would be brought into it. Variance of doses would be brought into it. They would definitely settle on a less intrusive system.

Jonny7

melissak wrote: »

people have a right to protest whatever they feel is wrong!

There are people who believe the world is flat.. a recent study showed that a sizable portion of Russians (could be any nation) still believe that the sun goes around the Earth..

These are harmless beliefs


It's when these types of people head into for example, the health area, with beliefs such as; vaccines cause autism, that you'll find the problems start. So they can be lovely people with a gentle message..


But (how do I put this delicately).. They're still ****ing wrong and spreading a dangerous message

melissak

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are people who believe the world is flat.. a recent study showed that a sizable portion of Russians (could be any nation) still believe that the sun goes around the Earth..

These are harmless beliefs


It's when these types of people head into for example, the health area, with beliefs such as; vaccines cause autism, that you'll find the problems start. So they can be lovely people with a gentle message..


But (how do I put this delicately).. They're still ****ing wrong and spreading a dangerous message

For a long time the common consensus was that the world was flat and that the sun went round the earth. Anyone who disagreed with the party line was burned at the stake. What we "know" to be truth today may be proven false tomorrow. Right and wrong is subjective and changes like the seasons. In the words of socrates "I am wise because i KNOW nothing". I am just baffled by why so many people are so up in a heap about someone disagreeing with their version of the truth. If it means so much to them why not go out and protest proflouride in person instead of sitting behind computers and screen names tearing down people for disagreeing with the status quo. Again that is the joy of opinions, we all get to have one.

jh79

melissak wrote: »

For a long time the common consensus was that the world was flat and that the sun went round the earth. Anyone who disagreed with the party line was burned at the stake. What we "know" to be truth today may be proven false tomorrow. Right and wrong is subjective and changes like the seasons. In the words of socrates "I am wise because i KNOW nothing". I am just baffled by why so many people are so up in a heap about someone disagreeing with their version of the truth. If it means so much to them why not go out and protest proflouride in person instead of sitting behind computers and screen names tearing down people for disagreeing with the status quo. Again that is the joy of opinions, we all get to have one.

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

Capt'n Midnight

melissak wrote: »

I was not putting forward an argument either way but clarifying the difference between naturally occurring and artificially added. What is natural is not within our control!!

In many parts of the world natural water is treated to reduce fluoride to safe levels.

You may notice 97% of the country isn't covered by oak forests or that bears and wolves aren't that common in what's left.

What's natural is always best or safe. Irish wolves in particular had a nasty reputation.

Capt'n Midnight

SamAK wrote: »

AARRGH I JUST WANT WATER IN MY WATER

Pure water doesn't taste nice. It's better with dissolved solids.

Muise...

melissak wrote: »

For a long time the common consensus was that the world was flat and that the sun went round the earth. Anyone who disagreed with the party line was burned at the stake. What we "know" to be truth today may be proven false tomorrow. Right and wrong is subjective and changes like the seasons. In the words of socrates "I am wise because i KNOW nothing". I am just baffled by why so many people are so up in a heap about someone disagreeing with their version of the truth. If it means so much to them why not go out and protest proflouride in person instead of sitting behind computers and screen names tearing down people for disagreeing with the status quo. Again that is the joy of opinions, we all get to have one.

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.

melissak

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.