Charlatan "girl against flouride" finally exposed

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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..

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...

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

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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 .

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

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.

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?

melissak

robindch wrote: »

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.

To be fair there are plenty of actual scientists that are not proflouride and working for the government of a country that flouridates, who don't think that the moon is made of green cheese, that could impartially review something. Again I apologise for not knowing what a peer review was.

renegademaster

people should be allowed opt-in to flouridation of their water supply

is that too much to ask?

Muise...

melissak wrote: »

To be fair there are plenty of actual scientists that are not proflouride and working for the government of a country that flouridates, who don't think that the moon is made of green cheese, that could impartially review something. Again I apologise for not knowing what a peer review was.

It's not about pro- or anti- or policies in country of origin. That would just be a pub debate. It is about ascertaining the best, most accurate information through an objective process.

melissak

Muise... wrote: »

It's not about pro- or anti- or policies in country of origin. That would just be a pub debate. It is about ascertaining the best, most accurate information through an objective process.

Again. Sorry I did not know what a peer review was. I was responding to a a comment asking whether I think science should be reviewed by people who think the moon is made of cheese

jh79

renegademaster wrote: »

people should be allowed opt-in to flouridation of their water supply

is that too much to ask?

Could you explain the logistics of tailoring the water supply to each individual house?

melissak

melissak wrote: »

Again. Sorry I did not know what a peer review was. I was responding to a a comment asking whether I think science should be reviewed by people who think the moon is made of cheese

Anyway the peer review I was talking about was not reviewing the government's scientist. It was him reviewing someone elses paper, does only one person review a paper

jh79

melissak wrote: »

Again. Sorry I did not know what a peer review was. I was responding to a a comment asking whether I think science should be reviewed by people who think the moon is made of cheese

Does it not bother you that Waugh and the girl against fluoride consistently misrepresent scientific data?

melissak

jh79 wrote: »

Could you explain the logistics of tailoring the water supply to each individual house?

Flouride drops for those who want them. Logistically easier than water meters I'd hazard a guess

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

jh79

melissak wrote: »

Flouride drops for those who want them. Logistically easier than water meters I'd hazard a guess

And who will pay for these. Given we will soon have water meters and will only be paying for what we use you could drink bottled water and use the mains for everything else? Wouldn't that be fairer given there are no valid reasons to stop fluoridation.

melissak

jh79 wrote: »

And who will pay for these.

The same people who pays for the existing flouridation I would expect

jh79

melissak wrote: »

The same people who pays for the existing flouridation I would expect

You could drink bottled water and would only have to pay for washing etc once the meters are up and running?

melissak

jh79 wrote: »

Does it not bother you that Waugh and the girl against fluoride consistently misrepresent scientific data?

It bothers me when anyone knowingly misrepresents anything someone else says. I just am not sure that they don't believe that what they are saying is the truth. And if they believe it to be the truth they are entitled to protest. I can't remember who said "This is my truth, tell me yours" but I like the quote..

jh79

melissak wrote: »

It bothers me when anyone knowingly misrepresents anything someone else says. I just am not sure that they don't believe that what they are saying is the truth.

Waugh has a science background knows exactly what he is doing.

melissak

jh79 wrote: »

You could drink bottled water and would only have to pay for washing etc once the meters are up and running?

I don't need to I have my own water supply. But why should other people have to?

Sarky

robindch wrote: »

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?

Only if you accept the phrase "LYING C*NTING WEASEL" typed out about 300 times in a row as comments.

Peer review can be fun sometimes.

Capt'n Midnight

melissak wrote: »

What does theory mean? As far as I understand it is not the same as fact....Many scientific theories are believed for a while and then thrown out when a more accurate theory comes along. Otherwise there would be no need for scientists at all, we would just say "that's it now, we know everything that there is to know we can stop questioning anything". That has been a dangerous position to take historically.
Anyway in my opinion a closed mind is more dangerous than a vacant one, if that is what you are suggesting that I have..

This has been done to death on the creationism forums,

put it this way, Gravity is only a theory. If something better comes along, and there is active research on this. then the new theory will be used instead.

But I would not recommend stepping out of an 8th story window regardless of what any new theory of gravity says.

melissak

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This has been done to death on the creationism forums,

put it this way, Gravity is only a theory. If something better comes along, and there is active research on this. then the new theory will be used instead.

But I would not recommend stepping out of an 8th story window regardless of what any new theory of gravity says.

Thanks for clarifying this for me, I don't accept gravity and was just about to step out of the window. You have saved me from my own stupidity. Well done you..

jh79

melissak wrote: »

I don't need to I have my own water supply. But why should other people have to?

What justifies stopping water fluoridation in your opinion?

Muise...

melissak wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying this for me, I don't accept gravity and was just about to step out of the window. You have saved me from my own stupidity. Well done you..

It was an analogy. I think you need more saving.

Guy:Incognito

Melissak , do you buy any food or anything else you ingest in shops/chemists etc? How do you know they aren't all poisoning you?

melissak

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Melissak , do you buy any food or anything else you ingest in shops/chemists etc? How do you know they aren't all poisoning you?

Oh guy incognito I am all too aware that some of the things I consume are poisoning me. I do try to limit my exposure by growing a lot of my own food and making my own wine etc but there is only so much you can do. I try to buy organic food as much as possible but it is so much more expensive, it is difficult to eliminate all pesticides but believe me I am working on it!!! I am luckin fairness to live in the countryside, but then there are the agricultural poisons from other farms etc....

robindch

melissak wrote: »

It bothers me when anyone knowingly misrepresents anything someone else says.

But the continuous stream of lies from the anti-fluoride lobbyists doesn't worry?

jh79 wrote: »

Waugh has a science background knows exactly what he is doing.

Having read some of Waugh's incoherent ramblings, I can confidently say that he doesn't have a clue about what he's doing.

To be honest, I feel rather sorry for him - that he can make himself so annoyed about something which is so transparently, and so obviously, completely wrong.

It's like reading a "Rant Against Leprechauns" by somebody who thinks a leprechaun stole his wallet.

robindch

melissak wrote: »

[...] I don't accept gravity and was just about to step out of the window [...]

Well, why don't you?

The modern theory of gravity was generally developed by people paid for by governments. And you're on record here as saying that government scientists can't be trusted.

Capt'n Midnight

endacl wrote: »

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

That was done years back.

Did people get upset , not a bit, just some nimbys going on about the radiation from the base stations

melissak

jh79 wrote: »

What justifies stopping water fluoridation in your opinion?

I have not categorically said that it should be stopped. I avoid it as i have concerns, but that is my personal choice, I am not bestowing that choice on you. My post said that it would not be difficult logistically to do. My point was, is and will remain that if people do not wish to be mass medicated by their government they have every right to protest.

melissak

robindch wrote: »

Well, why don't you?

The modern theory of gravity was generally developed by people paid for by governments. And you're on record here as saying that government scientists can't be trusted.

Oh you're saying that the IRISH government scientists developed the theory of gravity.. ****ing newton stealing our thunder!!

melissak

robindch wrote: »

Well, why don't you?

The modern theory of gravity was generally developed by people paid for by governments. And you're on record here as saying that government scientists can't be trusted.

I wonder is it appropriate for a MODERATOR on this site to suggest someone should commit suicide by jumping out an 8th story window because he disagrees with a point.??? I doubt it.... There is something amiss with you...

jh79

melissak wrote: »

I have not categorically said that it should be stopped. I avoid it as i have concerns, but that is my personal choice, I am not bestowing that choice on you. My post said that it would not be difficult logistically to do. My point was, is and will remain that if people do not wish to be mass medicated by their government they have every right to protest.

They have the right to protest but not the right to lie about the effects of fluoridation which is what Waugh et al are doing.

robindch

melissak wrote: »

I wonder is it appropriate for a MODERATOR on this site to suggest someone should commit suicide by jumping out an 8th story window because he disagrees with a point?

Uh, you were the one who suggested that you were about to commit suicide by jumping out of a window. To wit:

melissak wrote: »

[...] I don't accept gravity and was just about to step out of the window. You have saved me from my own stupidity. [...]

I'm happy that somebody from the scientific side of the debate was able to save you from your own stupidity!

BTW, are you saying that you now trust government-funded scientists? If so, well, that's progress