A little light reading, perhaps?
When will the government appoint
Ministers who actually understand basic science?
Dr. Thomas
Stockmann
Prof
Stephen Peckham is quite correct;
the response of Earl Howe to Parliamentary Questions put by Earl
Baldwin entirely fails to address the real issues raised by the Noble
Earl. Once again the government's spokesman seems to be speaking with
blissful ignorance and aplomb on a subject of which he appears to
know nothing - no, not fluoridation, but science itself!
If
you read (God forbid!) the entire paper on which he relies (McGrady
et al - on 'social deprivation,dental caries, and fluorosis
in the UK') you'll find it liberally endowed with numerous
disclaimers about the reliability of the study. The authors are
clearly well aware of the limited reliability of their findings. They
provide numerous disclaimers, carefully expressed in impeccably
reasonable language, about certain points on which the study might be
viewed as not quite meeting the high standards that one would expect
in any experimental medication of large numbers of the general
public.
The
study presents challenging examples of complicated-looking
statistical techniques, giving the impression (at least to the lay
reader) that here at last is a really robust study, one that settles
all this annoying confusion once and for all. Yet don't be fooled -
all such epidemiological studies are inevitably subject to
uncertainty and even (Oh no!) bias, and this one is no exception.
Here,
as in some other studies referred to in the introduction, we see once
again this irritating habit of 'cherry picking' the data.
These studies rarely if ever deal with ALL of the data on ALL
relevant communities. Instead they compare selected towns - but
annoyingly they never reveal all of actual data. When perfectly
simple (but curiously unreported) 'Confidence Intervals' are
calculated, which describe how much error exists in a study's data,
all too often it it turns out that the level of uncertainty in the
effects on the selected town populations is so great that the
comparison is statistically meaningless!
That's
the problem with research on the effects of experimenting on the
public - you don't really know nearly enough about your unwary
subjects to be certain of what the supposed 'results' of follow-up
studies mean in the real world. The effects of fluoridation on the
governmental's unsuspecting guinea pigs really are a matter of some
considerable confusion.
But
even so, these Ministerial statements appear designed to give the
impression to potentially critical listeners and readers that
they can ignore the suspicion that there might just be some serious
flaws that could lead to the impression that (Heaven forbid!) a
slight pinch of salt might be a sensible accompaniment to this latest
waffling. (You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment, honest
Guv, trust me, I'm a politician!)
If
the way that an experiment is carried out is subject to severe bias
(as is this one) then it is entirely irrelevant how fancy
the statistical analysis of its basic data may be - it's still wrong!
The more complex the study, the greater the confounding effects of
the flaws. Just because a study happens to get 'results' that appear
to be 'consistent' with other studies in the same field - and often
even those performed by the same people - this
doesn't mean that its conclusions are any more reliable than any of
the other studies. It
may simply means that all such studies suffer from the same defects -
they may all be equally and consistently wrong!
Earl
Howe's reliance on this paper, in an apparent effort to disarm Earl
Baldwin's questions, is the latest in a long chain of Parliamentary
Answers that serve merely attempt to conceal the chaotic state into
which the government's fatuous promotion of fluoridation has
descended. The recently leaked study of dental fluorosis in Ireland,
by John Gormley TD, reveals that fluorosis in Irish kids increased
by a factor of seven after fluoridation was introduced,
yet it remained extremely rare in unfluoridated Northern Ireland.
I've
mentioned this several times over the past years, as it's already
well known, and even in the public domain over there - yet
still our Parliamentarians trundle our the same old gossip for our
edification. Shouldn't spokesmen for the government be aware of ALL
recent evidence, rather than 'cherry pick' what's been lying around
for years because it happens to fit their official policy briefings?
Come on, Earl Howe - tell us about the latest 'Gormley Repor't, then!
Fluoridated
water may not be the only
cause
of fluoride overload and dental fluorosis, but it sure as Hell is the
most dangerous and pervasive environmental source of
bioavailable fluoride, even including that damned fluoridated
toothpaste!. It's the most active cause of the rampant spread of
dental fluorosis (and not just of 'severe fluorosis', Earl Howe) in
Irish kids throughout that unfortunate country.
Unfortunately,
the equivalent data on how much fluorosis our own kids have is a
closely guarded official secret here in the UK.The
info has been deliberately suppressed for decades - just check out
the BASCD instructions to collectors of dmft/DMFT to ignore fluorosis
in the biennual compilation of these statistics. The claim that it's
not causing 'general ill health' is unsupported by any real evidence,
so just why have the US and Irish governments both been forced to
reduce the recommended level of fluoride added to drinking water to
well below the magic 1ppm, with special warning to mothers with
babies?
Sadly,
Earl Howe somehow seems to have forgotten to answer Earl Baldwin's
awkward question about our old sparring partner, the BFS.
Perhaps he prefers not to admit to the government's continuing close
association with an organisation that has for years been recklessly
making some rather naughty medicinal claims about the supposed
prophylactic property of unlicensed medical products? (Yep, they're
even pushing fluoridated school milk, up here in the benighted North
West too!)
The
paper referred to by Earl Howe does not contribute anything new to
the scientific understanding of this epidemic - it's worthless,
so forget it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home