Another blow to the anti-vaccination nutters

July 7th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Daily Beast reports:

Yet another group of studies shows vaccines have very low risk of side effects—and no link to autism. When will anti-vaxxers finally wake up?

Probably never. They’re like the anti-fluoride brigade. A local example is former Green MP Sue Kedgley:

Health officials and the medical establishment have decided that vaccination is such an essential public health tool that New Zealanders should simply accept its benefits without question, and have even implied that the unvaccinated are a risk to the health of society. At the same time they have dismissed those who question or oppose it, as dangerous, extreme and irresponsible.

Only because they are.

My own interest in vaccination began when I gave birth to my son 14 years ago. Whether or not to vaccinate our children was a hot topic at our regular mother’s group meetings, but eventually I had my son vaccinated.

Shortly after receiving his triple MMR vaccine at 15 months, he developed a horrendous incident of croup — to the point where he was taken to the emergency department. He subsequently developed a weakness in the chest which led to childhood asthma, which fortunately, through my various remedies, he has managed to shake off.

At the time I said to my doctor, I am certain the croup was triggered by the vaccination, but the doctor dismissed my suggestion as ludicrous, and certainly never forwarded it as an adverse reaction to the Centre for Adverse Reactions, which records significant adverse reactions to vaccination. I was convinced it was, however, and my son has never received another vaccination since.

It’s like the father who is convinced his child’s cancer was caused by the wifi network at their school.

I discovered, to my horror, that 23 vaccines, including vaccines that were given to babies, used thiomersal — a substance that is 50% mercury, one of the most toxic substances.

Kedgley does what most anti science nutters do. She refers to the presence of toxins, without mentioning their level. They may be at less than one thousandeth the safe level, but hey who cares about science.

Given these adverse reactions, and the acknowledged risks of , it is alarming that the government has been quietly increasing the number of our children receive before they are five, without any public debate or inquiry.

So this Green MP was against kids having more vaccinations.

Green Party policy today is very nuanced on vaccinations it seems because:

Our official position is influenced by the fact that we do not have a firm policy on it as we don’t have consensus from our members.

Anyway back to the main article:

The AHRQ study played out like this: 20,478 articles or meeting abstracts were identified by an electronic dragnet, of which 3,208 had enough about vaccine safety to warrant a closer look. These were really clawed through and mostly discarded for faulty (or absent) study design, missing information, or else use of non-US approved vaccines. Once whittled down, they were left with 67 studies—typical fallout in the world of the systematic review, though one that sometimes raises questions from those first hearing of the approach.

They then worked through a rating system that quantified just how good the evidence, pro or con, was for each vaccine of interest: measles-mumps-rubella (often called MMR) which uses weakened though still-live viruses; the chicken pox vaccine (ditto); and killed or genetically engineered vaccines against influenza, hepatitis, meningitis, and several other conditions.

After all the rigmarole, they found what any pediatrician already knew: the MMR causes fever. Fever, in a child, can provoke seizures. They found zero evidence to support a connection between MMR and autism or other neurologic problems.

Zero evidence. Zip.

Indeed, there is nothing surprising about the AHRQ article or the IOM’s review. Rather, the surprise is that groups as important and as busy continue to re-re-re-review the same data to reach the same conclusions, all because of the relentless countervailing force of the anti-vaccine crowd.

Because they never give up. They have a world view that Gaia made us all perfect and we should never let science interfere with Gaia’s grand plan – even if that means kids dying of preventable illnesses.

But nothing the scientific, evidenced-based, reality-based, rational world can do will change the minds of those who are not working from the same basic premise where science trumps belief. For them and millions of others, belief trumps science. To try to win them over on the merits of the argument is doomed to failure and even derision: the accusations that the latest study is rigged, that the scientists involved actually are only “scientists,” that the real evidence, long suppressed by the orthodox view, shows clear and incontrovertible evidence that vaccines are killing and maiming people left and right.

Very familiar.

I suggest people attend their local Meet The Candidate meetings and ask them for their views on vaccinations. If they start spouting nonsense about how they cause autism, and there is a conspiracy – then that makes it easy – don;t vote for them or their party.

Tags: ,

193 Responses to “Another blow to the anti-vaccination nutters”

  1. RRM (10,018 comments) says:

    I know a few anti-vax families.

    NONE of them are worried about autism. It is interesting that that strawman is debated time and again whenever this issue comes up.

    (None of them consort with prostitutes, or have thoughts that are contrary to the revolution or the party, either…)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Lance (2,714 comments) says:

    The greatest breakthrough in medical science, in history, and a bunch of twits oppose it.

    I have no words for how fucked up this all is.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Liam Hehir (147 comments) says:

    I sometimes wonder why it is that the global warming consensus is the only one that counts, and why other consensuses aren’t considered conclusive.

    How come nobody ever asks Russel Norman, for example, why his party hasn’t signed up to the expert consensus on vaccines – or GMO or the relationship between unemployment and the minimum wage.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Odakyu-sen (750 comments) says:

    The gene pool needs more chlorine…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Odakyu-sen (422 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Is that you Adolph?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. eszett (2,430 comments) says:

    thiomersal — a substance that is 50% mercury, one of the most toxic substances.

    I really have to laugh out loud at this one.
    It’s like saying: salt – a substance that is 50% Chlorine, one of the most toxic substances.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    @ RRM, just curious, if not for the autism thing, why are they anti-vax?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Just two questions:

    “They’re like the anti-fluoride brigade.”

    really?
    I don’t want the stuff in my drinking water.
    It is safe, so what, I don’t care?
    I don’t need it, don’t force me to take it.

    “… they have dismissed those who question or oppose it, as dangerous, extreme and irresponsible.”

    They might be irresponsible…. but extreme or dangerous?
    Dangerous to who?
    You want to (as with fluoride) inject them by force?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ChardonnayGuy (1,215 comments) says:

    I was sorry to read that Sue Kedgeley sides with the anti-vaccination nutbars and junk science advocates. Ironic, considering that Andrew Wakefield’s original mendacious attack on the Mumps Measles Rubella (MMR) vaccine in the Lancet has now been thoroughly investigated by the UK General Medical Council and that it was found to contain numerous falsifications, leading to Wakefield being struck off the medical register and being banned from practising medicine in the United Kingdom.

    She certainly doesn’t speak for me or the mainstream centre-left, who base our public policy conclusions on evidence-based scientific and medical research…which Wakefield’s orchestrated tissue of lies is most certainly not.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wreck1080 (3,962 comments) says:

    The psychology behind this is the most interesting though.

    Most people have some inbuilt belief or another where no amount of contrary evidence or circumstantial changes will alter their belief.

    Extreme cases like where vaccination programmes have saved millions and millions of lives, people have turned focus away from the disease and to the vaccine itself.

    I think the better and more perfect life becomes , people still want an issue to focus their irrationality upon. A bit like in the matrix film, people didn’t want the perfect world, they wanted an ugly, gritty and violent world.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. georgebolwing (993 comments) says:

    eszett is spot on: thiomersal is a molecule that contains the element Mercury, just as common table salt is a molecule that contains both the elements Chlorine and Sodium which, separate, are very dangerous, but together aren’t. Understanding what a molecule is and that they can have very different chemical properties to their constituent elements is very, very, very basic science. Like how at sea level and room temperature, hydrogen and oxygen are gases and water (a molecule made up of hydrogen and oxygen) is a fluid.

    That Ms Kedgley either doesn’t know what a molecule is or does and decides to suggest that molecules and elements are the same, to my mind disqualifies her from discussing this matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “She certainly doesn’t speak for me or the mainstream centre-left, who base our public policy conclusions on evidence-based scientific and medical research…”

    Good luck with that.
    A lobotomy was a mainstream procedure for more than two decades, just 60 years ago, supported by the medical consensus and evidence-based scientific and medical research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mjw (400 comments) says:

    The idea that we are rational beings is, unfortunately, hard to support. Instead our decisions are dominated by emotion and fashion. The vaccine issue is a prime example, but there are many others.

    For example, would anyone dare ask whether banning DDT in 1972 cost more lives than it saved? The ban was reversed in 2006 for use in combating malaria, one of the world’s biggest killers. An emotionally-driven decision to ban it in 1972 arguably killed millions.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (7,544 comments) says:

    RRM: Are you feeling quite well?

    I find it difficult to be in the same room as these “anti-vax” people. Because of them, diseases that had been eliminated from the world are making a comeback… which may in turn affect my children’s children (not my kids; they are vaccinated to the hilt)…

    Wonderful reference to salt being “50% chlorine”…pretty much the same ludicrous argument as put up by the anti- fluoride nutters…”but it’s a poison!”…No mention of dosage…perhaps to be fair they are so stupid they don’t understand that 10 ppm is not quite the same as swallowing a teaspoon of the stuff…

    I believe I read somewhere years ago that if you eat enough carrots you can cause liver failure…that’s after you have turned orange!!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Liam Hehir (147 comments) says:

    We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines — this person included.

    Barack Obama

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ChardonnayGuy (1,215 comments) says:

    However, medical practice changes over time in response to greater precision and scrutiny of evidence-based research. And again, Wakefield’s Lancet piece has been exposed as utterly mendacious and he has been struck off the UK medical register precisely because of that. The anti-vaccination lobby are utter charlatans and should be treated as such by mainstream politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Lance (2,714 comments) says:

    @Other_Andy
    So one ‘mistake’ 60 years ago in the vast field of medicine makes all future medicine suspect and quackery?

    Notes down: Other_Andy is a conspiracy theorist who doesn’t let facts get the road… got that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. david (2,563 comments) says:

    Simple answer to the vaccination deniers is “the science is settled”. Watch them splutter into their green tea.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @DG

    I am usually right behind your arguments but (it seems) not on this one.

    Regarding fluoride.
    Should the state (or any other authority) be able to ‘medicate’ you against your will as long as it has no averse affects (at least as we know at the moment) on you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Lance (2,714 comments) says:

    @Other_Andy
    No Andy, you are right. All water supplies should be left untreated in all respects and the more bacteria the better. Whats a little e-coli between friends, bring on the water born diseases, hell, it’ll toughen NZ up.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Lance says:

    Hey Lance lighten up and don’t use a strawman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. ChardonnayGuy (1,215 comments) says:

    Unfortunately, David, we’re talking about people whose chief information sources are not centred in orthodox, methodical evidence-based science and medicine but the ‘alternative health’ industry and associated business enterprises, so they merely view what you and I would consider as definitive and thorough evidence-based rebuttals from worthy and authoritative professional sources as part of the (sigh) “conspiracy” to curtail the ‘freedom’ of ‘complementary’ and ‘alternative’ “medicine” (sic) and health products (sic).

    While I find Sue Kedgeley’s opinions on this matter bloody awful, I would also point out that the anti-vaccination lobby is embraced by the raving right as well as the loony left (viz that peculiar Wishart individual)- as opposed to those of us on the centre-left and centre-right.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dime (10,108 comments) says:

    “really?
    I don’t want the stuff in my drinking water.
    It is safe, so what, I don’t care?
    I don’t need it, don’t force me to take it.”

    yeah me too. i hate it when every morning the council van turns up and 6 blokes hold me down and make me drink tap water. its just awful :( :(

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Lance says:

    ” No Andy, you are right. All water supplies should be left untreated in all respects and the more bacteria the better. Whats a little e-coli between friends, bring on the water born diseases, hell, it’ll toughen NZ up.”

    Rrrright.
    So you are not only putting words in peoples’ mouths but you don’t know the difference between water treatment and medication either.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dime (10,108 comments) says:

    “Because of them, diseases that had been eliminated from the world are making a comeback…”

    Dime managed to pick up whooping cough a couple of years ago (narrowed it down to this drunk skank, great night). My reaction when the doctor told me was “wtf??? i’m not a 19th century chimney sweep”.

    in case anyone is wondering, whooping cough is 100 days of hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Lance (2,714 comments) says:

    @Andy
    No, not everyone will become ill from ‘untreated water’. But some will.
    It is a compulsory medication, chemicals are added to the water without everyone’s permission.
    People could fit water purifiers if they wanted to be sure.

    The same bloody argument you and your kind are putting forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. James Stephenson (2,225 comments) says:

    through my various remedies

    A witch! A witch!

    Can’t we just learn to ignore these idiots who think two bits of their own anecdata aresomehow worth more than real scientific data?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I have to wonder about this argument. (All my children and my grandchildren are immunised)

    1. Flouride is not necessary in water to kill bacteria.

    2. Fluoride is available to be taken separately by those that wish to – therefore it can be a matter of personal choice.

    3. Fluoride in water has given my dog a number of health complaints, a change to spring water has cleared up those complaints (just thought I’d add that).

    4. When I was a child, no one was immunised. We all got measles, mumps, chickenpox, along with nits and school sores etc. No one died from them.

    5. Why didn’t anyone die? Could it be because our diets and lifestyles were a hell of a lot more healthy and we had better immune systems, and half the reason these illnesses are coming back and are deadly is because of a lack of natural immunity to fighting illness?

    6. My grandchildren are immunised – despite no other person in their families suffering from allergies in previous generations, two are allergic to nuts and eggs, and the other allergic to milk, and wheat products.

    Somewhere we are doing something wrong, I don’t know if its immunisation or not, but I’m starting to believe the less chemicals we expose our children to, the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Odakyu-sen (750 comments) says:

    “It’s like saying: salt – a substance that is 50% Chlorine, one of the most toxic substances.”

    And don’t forget the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide – can be dangerous in high doses.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Liam Hehir (147 comments) says:

    No one died from them.

    I am sorry but that is not correct – at least as far as measles are concerned. It can be a life-threatening disease. In addition, it can commonly bring about complications that can result in serious, permanent damage or death.

    What about polio? Did you get that?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Lance says:

    “No, not everyone will become ill from ‘untreated water’. But some will.”

    According to a 2007 World Health Organization report, 88 percent of the 4 billion annual cases of diarrheal disease are attributed to unsafe water and inadequate sanitation and hygiene, and 1.8 million people die from diarrheal diseases each year. Simple techniques for treating water at home, such as chlorination, filters, and solar disinfection can prevent this.

    “It is a compulsory medication, chemicals are added to the water without everyone’s permission.”

    No, it is not medication, it is done to produce water fit for a specific purpose, which is drinking.

    “People could fit water purifiers if they wanted to be sure.”

    People could just brush their teeth or take fluoride tablets instead of relying on the council to look after their teeth.

    “The same bloody argument you and your kind are putting forward.”

    What is my kind?
    If you just want to rant and troll, let me know and I will stop trying to have a reasoned argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Liam Hehir (67 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 10:21 am

    No one I went to school with died. I’m sure people did die from measles but it wasn’t common enough for it to fall into my childhood radar.

    The fact is the vast majority did not need any more than a few days off school.

    People die of the flu. I’ve had my flu jab for years, I still get the flu – and at times its as bad as those that don’t have the jab.

    I take your point about polio – but virtually no one that got it, came out unscathed. However, with the other diseases, virtually everyone came out of it healthy. That being the difference. However, I do believe that today that will have changed, because generally people are not as healthy. People seem to suffer and lack the ability to fight off infection like they used to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. David Garrett (7,544 comments) says:

    Other Andy @ 9.52: If there was the slightest credible evidence that fluoride – at the levels it is put into our water – is or might be unsafe, my answer would of course be “No'”

    However I say ‘Yes, the state should in this instance ‘medicate’ us” because the “Us” who benefit by far the most are our children. We do not allow religious nuts to refuse medical treatment for their children because their cult says it is not allowed – but we allow competent adults to refuse a blood transfusion and die if that is their wish.

    Out here there is of course no fluoride in the rainwater (well there might be, remember those chemtrails..) and my kids take a fluoride tablet night and morning. If there was any reliable way to ensure that the fluoride nutters similarly treat their children then I would say No, there is no justification for dosing the water. But there isn’t, and of course the nutters would never do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    Key facts
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/
    Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
    In 2012, there were 122 000 measles deaths globally – about 330 deaths every day or 14 deaths every hour.
    Measles vaccination resulted in a 78% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2012 worldwide.
    In 2012, about 84% of the world’s children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.
    Since 2000, more than 1 billion children in high risk countries were vaccinated against the disease through mass vaccination campaigns ― about 145 million of them in 2012.
    RUBELLA
    Key facts

    Rubella is a contagious, generally mild viral infection that occurs most often in children and young adults.
    Rubella infection in pregnant women may cause fetal death or congenital defects known as congenital rubella syndrome (CRS).
    Worldwide, an estimated 110 000 babies are born with CRS every year.
    There is no specific treatment for rubella but the disease is preventable by vaccination.
    Congenital rubella syndrome

    Children with CRS can suffer hearing impairments, eye and heart defects and other lifelong disabilities, including autism, diabetes mellitus and thyroid dysfunction – many of which require costly therapy, surgeries and other expensive care.

    The highest risk of CRS is in countries where women of childbearing age do not have immunity to the disease (either through vaccination or from having had rubella). Before the introduction of the vaccine, up to four babies in every 1000 live births were born with CRS.

    Large-scale rubella vaccination during the past decade has practically eliminated rubella and CRS in many developed and in some developing countries. The WHO Region of the Americas has had no endemic (naturally-transmitted) cases of rubella infection since 2009.

    CRS rates are highest in the WHO African and South-East Asian regions where vaccine coverage is lowest.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tvb (4,512 comments) says:

    What are the risks of not vaccinating. Does Kedgeley think about that?? Most normal people consider the risks of not vaccinating to be far higher

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    David Garrett says:

    “If there was the slightest credible evidence that fluoride – at the levels it is put into our water – is or might be unsafe, my answer would of course be “No’”

    I don’t think it is unsafe either. I brush my teeth with a fluoride toothpaste and rinse with a liquid that contains fluoride.
    For me it isn’t a health issue, it is an issue of control and personal responsibility.
    Is it correct to state that you think it is correct to add a treatment for dental decay to the drinking water that is consumed by everybody because some parents can’t be bothered to look after their childrens’ teeth?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. David Garrett (7,544 comments) says:

    tvb: Quite so.

    Up in Tonga the authorities don’t worry about “informed consent”, they just come around to the schools and vaccinate the kids. As a result, even though Tonga is very much a third world country with poor sanitation there is an extremely low incidence of Measles Mumps or Rubella (MMR) in fact I had to explain to my former wife what the vaccinations are for, because she had never heard of kids getting any such diseases. That’ll be because very kid in Tonga – except perhaps the kids of the supposedly better informed palangis – gets vaccinated for everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. wreck1080 (3,962 comments) says:

    @other_andy —

    Try to think of it as a bit like progressive tax. Some of us higher earners make a sacrifice by paying higher taxes to help out the poor.

    Equally, you’re making a sacrifice by having the fluoridation choice taken away from you so that lessor educated folk can enjoy the benefit of fluoridation.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. wikiriwhis business (4,119 comments) says:

    I’d rather just go thru with ma flu. cleans me ouit and makes me feel fresh when it’s done.

    Tiger Balm is great but the flu comes back cause it hasn’t finished.

    Vicks Formula 44 is the absolute andidote for chest coughs.

    I must say vaccination for Polio was a huge victory

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. wf (464 comments) says:

    Chromium! We had a renal patient on dialysis. He lived in a rural area and had a lovely source of spring water that was tested for use in his machine. No bugs!
    After a few months we found that he was definitely going a bit barmy. Did tests, tried drugs – and finally someone sent a sample of the beautiful spring water off to be tested. The Chromium levels were the only aberration in the test results, and within a couple of months of appropriate filtering of the water, he returned to normal.
    What we found out, because we had the water at WPH tested too, was that the Wellington City Council used chromium in the reservoirs to flocculate the city’s water supply – but at appropriate levels. (There WERE some bad jokes going around though.)

    A bit of chlorine in the water that pregnant mums absorb and which helps the formation of the unborn babies’ teeth seems a practical solution if it prevent tooth decay.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. David Garrett (7,544 comments) says:

    Andy: I am unable to edit my earlier comment to respond..

    It is not a matter of “some parents cant be bothered to look after their children’s teeth” for a start, fluoride toothpastes can only do so much (ask any dentist)…well, not ANY dentist – I think there might be seven in the country who think like you.

    Secondly while you and I can afford fluoride tablets or mouth washes, most poor families have more pressing priorities – like food.

    Anyway, let’s just agree to disagree…we are never going to convince each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nigel Kearney (1,049 comments) says:

    it is an issue of control and personal responsibility

    No, it isn’t. And it’s not a health issue either.

    If flouride is added, people who don’t want that can avoid drinking tap water. If fluoride is not added, people who want it can add it themselves. We should just do what is more efficient based on the size of each group and the degree of cost and inconvenience for them if they don’t get their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. James Stephenson (2,225 comments) says:

    Is it correct to state that you think it is correct to add a treatment for dental decay to the drinking water that is consumed by everybody because some parents can’t be bothered to look after their childrens’ teeth?

    I’m quite far along the Libertarian spectrum and my feeling is that it’s safe, effective, efficient and low-cost so why not? Given that my tax dollars will be susidising the dental care of most of those CBA parents then mitigating that cost is also a good thing.

    There are a number of ways to get water with different chemical and mineral compositions if you so wish.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @Judith

    “4. When I was a child, no one was immunised. We all got measles, mumps, chickenpox, along with nits and school sores etc. No one died from them.”

    ———————-

    When I was a child, a kid at my school died from encephalitis caused by measles.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wikiriwhis business (4,119 comments) says:

    “yeah me too. i hate it when every morning the council van turns up and 6 blokes hold me down and make me drink tap water. its just awful”

    what a huge trivialisation

    Councils do what they want no matter what they promise. The Mayor of Kapiti proved that with Water Meters reneging and denying the meter mounts as mysteriously placed. she got that bizzarre folks. The CEO of Kapiti denied water meters because he had already installed them in Nelson previously. Guess what…he put them in.

    Dime, Dime, Dime. My eyes cast downwards for you

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ judith

    i really am sick (no pun intended) of people like yourself spouting such uninformed drivel.

    Measles is a serious infection it causes fever, runny nose, cough and a rash all over the body. About one out of 10 children with measles also gets an ear infection, and up to one out of 20 gets pneumonia. For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die.

    Children under 5 years of age and adults over 20 are at higher risk for measles complications including pneumonia, and a higher risk of hospitalization and death from measles than school aged children and adolescents.

    Every time we have had an outbreak in NZ the vector has been an unvaccinated person and the vast amount of persons who come down with measles are similarly unvaccinated. These outbreaks put a very significant strain on health services and schools and are terrifying for parents with children and adults who are immunosuppressed through genetic disorders, cancers or such like where infection with measles is a high risk of being catastrophic.

    Your comments about fluoride are similarly ludicrous and fail to take into account the obvious and week documented dental issues in NZ in those communities who don’t fluoridate their water, the risk of fluoridating water is also a red herring as many communities overseas that don’t fluoridate there water yet importantly have a higher naturally occurring fluoride level in their H2O suffer no greater or lower health issues than other similar populations.

    In relation to DPFs comments regarding candidates views on vaccination I can only point to the views of one Mr Tat Loo chiropractor and candidate for labour who spreads vile misinformed lies at the standard on this issue.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-04072014/#comment-844398

    Kudos to those lefties over there that give him a serve when he spouts this rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    David Garrett says:

    “It is not a matter of “some parents cant be bothered to look after their children’s teeth” for a start, fluoride toothpastes can only do so much (ask any dentist)…well, not ANY dentist – I think there might be seven in the country who think like you.”

    Have you got a link to that information?

    “Secondly while you and I can afford fluoride tablets or mouth washes, most poor families have more pressing priorities – like food.”

    Honestly David? Too poor to buy a tube of Aim Toothpaste for $1.49 and a $1.99 McCleans toothbrush?
    Thinking about that…..
    Wouldn’t it be cheaper to give all ‘poor’ families a tube of toothpaste and a toothbrush every month (Or $3.50) instead of putting fluoride in the drinking water?

    “Anyway, let’s just agree to disagree…we are never going to convince each other.”

    No problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Crusader (322 comments) says:

    Sue Kedgely said….

    Shortly after receiving his triple MMR vaccine at 15 months, he developed a horrendous incident of croup — to the point where he was taken to the emergency department. He subsequently developed a weakness in the chest which led to childhood asthma, which fortunately, through my various remedies, he has managed to shake off.

    At the time I said to my doctor, I am certain the croup was triggered by the vaccination, but the doctor dismissed my suggestion as ludicrous, and certainly never forwarded it as an adverse reaction to the Centre for Adverse Reactions, which records significant adverse reactions to vaccination. I was convinced it was, however, and my son has never received another vaccination since.

    Paragraph one is an example of magical thinking. In reality there is no plausible causative link between vaccination, and croup (a very common – albeit frightening and occasionally deadly – disease of childhood).
    Since the vast majority of babies are vaccinated (thank goodness) in the first 18 months of life, that means there are a vast number of children who “shortly after” might also get the common event of croup.
    Someone with no scientific background would immediately leap to the conclusion that event A caused event B.
    It’s like saying “I prayed for event B to happen and it did, so prayer must work.”
    Or “I wore my lucky socks and scored a century, so I’ll wear them next innings.”
    Often magical thinking is harmless, but sometimes leads to child neglect i.e. failure to vaccinate.

    In paragraph two the fool says her son has never received a vaccination since. May I make a prediction that this son-of-idiot who waltzes through life in ignorance of the risks he faces being partially vaccinated, will suddenly become a believer in the power of vaccination when he decides to travel to an area of the world with endemic tropical disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    James Stephenson says at 10:47 am

    Good argument.
    But is it effective, efficient and low-cost?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. david (2,563 comments) says:

    Chardonnay Guy @ 9:56
    I agree which is why in my slightly twisted way I was trying to draw a comparison with the Global Warming debate and suggesting that possibly it is that same people who won’t (or don’t have the intelligence) question something that they want to believe who are keeping the idea that man is responsible for climate change alive.
    Those of us with any sort of background in science will constantly review the output of the scientific establishment and will take not of new evidence. We will also have confidence that the dangers of vaccination have been assessed and found to be within acceptable limits.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mandk (1,018 comments) says:

    @ Odakyu-sen

    And don’t forget that two-thirds of the atoms in di-hydrogen monoxide are hydrogen, which is really explosive.

    We should lobby for it to be banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. James Stephenson (2,225 comments) says:

    @Other_Andy – does that mean that you want to argue that fluoride treatment is ineffective, or that a single pipe going drip-drip-drip into a water treatment plant’s output isn’t efficient and low-cost?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (7,544 comments) says:

    Crusader: Excellent post…The thing about Kedgley’s statement which made me snort the loudest was her “combination of remedies” which fixed the son right up… The naturopaths supply shop nearest the Kedgley residence in …what’s that plutey hillside suburb above Oriental Bay called? will no doubt get a significant part of their cashflow from Ms Kedgley and her barrister husband..

    God, there must be some profit in homeopathy supplies! Put some tap water – albeit with “memory” – in a 150 ml bottle and sell it for $20…the profit must be greater than that for P!!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Hey retards, are you sure you”re getting your RDA of neurotoxins?

    Mercury from the fillings in your teeth and the preservative in vaccines.
    Fluoride from your toothpaste and your drinking water.

    http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_12-26-13/

    New Zealand Fluoridation Fraud

    With all the new information of cover-up and collusion between US Public health officials and the industries using or producing fluoride emissions being dug up by Michael Connett, and the revelations in David Kennedy’s new DVD “Fluoridegate” it is intriguing to revisit another example of fraud in the promotion of fluoridation – this time from New Zealand.
    The Smoking Gun

    This NZ fraud begins with a smoking gun letter (dated Oct. 12, 1962) from G. H. Leslie the director of NZ Government dentistry – who EIGHT years into the 10-year Hastings-Napier trial (1954-64) complains that they cannot find the evidence to convincingly demonstrate a relationship between fluoridation and lower tooth decay.

    According to Colquhoun the Hastings deception was in three parts:

    1) After about two years the control city of Napier was dropped for bogus reasons.

    2) The reduction in tooth decay claimed was based on comparing tooth decay in Hastings at the beginning and the end of the trial (and not a comparison between tooth decay in Hastings and Napier).
    3) The method of diagnosing tooth decay was changed during the trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. chris (647 comments) says:

    6. My grandchildren are immunised – despite no other person in their families suffering from allergies in previous generations, two are allergic to nuts and eggs, and the other allergic to milk, and wheat products.

    I suspect that the occurrence of so many more allergies (and other things like coeliac) are caused from our namby-pambyness these days about how pregnant women shouldn’t eat this and they shouldn’t eat that, and thereby never exposing the foetus to these things.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. dime (10,108 comments) says:

    Judith “2. Fluoride is available to be taken separately by those that wish to”

    arent you all for “free” breakfasts in schools cause kids go hungry?

    im pretty sure breakfast is available for purchase by those who wish to….

    or does shit head parent whos too lazy to feed his kid think “oh fuck, we are out of fluoride! better get some to add to the water bottle”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    James Stephenson says:

    “…does that mean that you want to argue that fluoride treatment is ineffective, or that a single pipe going drip-drip-drip into a water treatment plant’s output isn’t efficient and low-cost?”

    Why does everyone want to put words in my mouth?

    No, I don’t want to argue that fluoride treatment is ineffective.
    I don’t know how they put fluoride in the water or how much it costs so I do not know if it is effective or ineffective.
    But as you state that it is “effective, efficient and low-cost” I thought you had some data regarding the effectiveness and cost.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fentex (1,037 comments) says:

    Shortly after receiving his triple MMR vaccine at 15 months, he developed a horrendous incident of croup — to the point where he was taken to the emergency department.

    Foolish post hoc reasoning. If a week after receiving an immunisation her child was maimed by a car crash and delivered to the emergency department would she blame the vaccine? It’s the same connection – one happening after the other, the same flawed logic applies.

    Croup is generally a viral infection that constricts airways, it certainly isn’t caused by mercury and really ought, if understood by a parent, be a reminder of the need for vaccinations for it’s a direct example of the dangers viruses represent.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. georgebolwing (993 comments) says:

    A number of people posting on this thread are committing the classic unscientific error of confusing an anecdote with evidence.

    That someone somebody knows did or didn’t do something or have something happen to them is not scientific evidence of anything.

    Scientific evidence looks to compare “with and without”, not “before and after” This is why drug trials have a control group and why the best results come from double blind studies with a placebo given to the control: no one in either the control or the test group knows who is being treated, nor do the people doing the measuring of the results. This is all directed at establishing a counter-factual o the treatment: what would happen if the only difference between two people was that one ws treated and one wasn’t. If there is no difference, then the treatment hasn’t been effective.

    A result without a counter-factual is a anecdote and might be interesting, but proves nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Zapper (1,027 comments) says:

    Okay, so now Judith thinks that vaccination is not the way to go, and healthy eating means while you still get the diseases, you don’t die so it’s all good.

    Wow. I’m a bit more convinced that she’s a very effective parody.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. David Garrett (7,544 comments) says:

    Dime: Put somewhat more colourfully than me, but spot on!

    Chris: I am with you on that…and I believe that unlike this bollocks on fluoride, there IS some good scientific evidence that our obsession with germs – using hospital grade cleaners in the home for example – is resulting in greater levels of allergies.

    It’s entirely unscientific, but both my kids are completely allergy free…one was born in Tonga where basic hygiene can be wanting; the other lived out here on the ranch from the time he was six weeks old..I never actually encouraged him to see what worms tasted like, but I wouldn’t have worried if he had wanted to find out…

    George Bol: Quite so…and very well put if I may say so. But the wider point is that there are numerous studies showing that – for example – kids who drink and have their food prepared in fluoridated water have far lower levels of tooth decay than those who don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. James Stephenson (2,225 comments) says:

    Why does everyone want to put words in my mouth?

    I don’t, I just surmised that you wanted to argue about some part of what I’d written, so I asked a question to clarify.

    No, I don’t want to argue that fluoride treatment is ineffective.

    There you go, that wasn’t so hard was it?

    I don’t know how they put fluoride in the water or how much it costs so I do not know if it is effective or ineffective.
    But as you state that it is “effective, efficient and low-cost” I thought you had some data regarding the effectiveness and cost.

    They have a little pipe that goes drip-drip-drip into the output of the water treatment plant – they showed it on TV when the schmozzle about Hamiltron’s fluoride, or lack thereof, was in the news.

    IMO it’s about as close to a no-brainer as you can get. Having decided that it’s desirable to give lots of kids fluoride, shall we a) use the millions of dollars worth of water treatment and reticulation infrastructure we aready have or b) create a complete new delivery mechanism from scratch?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. chris (647 comments) says:

    @David Garrett – I agree on the over the top cleanliness of today too. I’m happy for my kids to get down and dirty, otherwise they don’t expose themselves to stuff to build up immunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    James Stephenson says:

    I will ask again. As you say it is effective, efficient and low-cost, do you have data regarding the effectiveness and cost?

    Why should we “create a complete new delivery mechanism from scratch”?
    Toothbrush, toothpaste and mouthwash have been around for some time now.

    It is also desirable to give lots of kids vitamin C and D.
    Low doses in drinking water won’t cause any ill effects.
    Now we are on a roll, shall we start adding vitamins to the water as well?

    * It will do more good than harm.
    * It is efficient and cost effective.
    * All those poor families that can’t feed their kids properly will benefit.
    * Those who don’t want it just put a filter on the tap

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Duncan Bayne (17 comments) says:

    Mercury is ‘one of the most toxic substances’? Epic science fail – yet I guess it’s what you’d expect from anti-vaxers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extremely_hazardous_substances

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    In the US, claimants have been awarded damages for vaccination-induced injuries, including for autism. Now why would a government make payouts if vaccines are safe?

    As for flouride, DPF, there is this awesome product which has been around for donkey’s years which reduces or eliminates tooth decay. It’s called toothpaste. You might have heard of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @ross001

    You don’t seem to understand that:

    1. The threshold for ‘proof’ in US civil courts is relatively low. Claimants only have to convince their peers (who are not experts).

    2. The claims for vaccine related harm are made against medical professionals or vaccine manufacturers (or more correctly – against their insurers). The claims are not made against the government.

    3. There is a small risk of adverse reactions to vaccines. This is highly distressing to the people involved but the risk is outweighed by the larger benefits that vaccines provide.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. stephieboy (3,399 comments) says:

    Judith,

    1. Flouride is not necessary in water to kill bacteria.??

    It’s chloride . Fluoride is put there to prevent dental decay which has proven to be most successful.

    UT, predictable from you. But tell me in Tauranga the water is not fluoridated in Auckland.

    Show me the empirical evidence that Aucklanders suffer from the alleged harmful effects of fluoride such as nerotoxcity , cancer and lower I Qs etc. compared to Tauranga residents .!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    If flouride is added, people who don’t want that can avoid drinking tap water.

    Well, yes, a lot of people do avoid it and buy bottled water. Landfills are full of empty water bottles. That isn’t useful.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    Stephieboy, two thirds of local councils do not add fluoride to their water supply. Can you advise if they sky has fallen in there…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ross001

    “In the US, claimants have been awarded damages for vaccination-induced injuries, including for autism. Now why would a government make payouts if vaccines are safe?”

    One award of damages for autism has been made in the US despite the lack of evidence.

    “In 2008 the federal government agreed to award damages to the family of Hannah Poling, a girl who developed autistic-like symptoms after receiving a series of vaccines in a single day. The vaccines given were DTaP, Hib, MMR, varicella, and inactivated polio. Poling was diagnosed months later with encephalopathy (brain disease) caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit, a mitochondrial disorder; it is not unusual for children with such deficits to develop neurologic signs between their first and second years. There is little scientific research in the area: no scientific studies show whether childhood vaccines can cause or contribute to mitochondrial disease, and there is no scientific evidence that vaccinations damage the brains of children with mitochondrial disorders. Although many parents view this ruling as confirming that vaccines cause regressive autism, most children with autism do not seem to have mitochondrial disorders, and the case was conceded without proof of causation.”

    The vast vast bulk of scientific data show absolutely no link between autism and vaccines while the key paper that did suggest a minor effect has been shown to be fraudulent and the author has been struck off and severely censured despite this his fraudulently study caused many parents to not vaccinate and the effects of that fraud continue to contribute to outbreaks like that seen in Auckland earlier this year and the current Waikato outbreak.

    Aslo regarding your uninformed commentary regarding fluoride I suggest you speak to the dental community in Northland where lack of fluoridation has have serious deleterious effects on dental health.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. G152 (385 comments) says:

    Drinking fluoridated water from year 1 will mean no partial or full dental plates at 50-60…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    Actually, there’s been many awards for damages re autism and some have run into the millions of dollars. What you seem to be saying is that the courts are quite happy to award millions of dollars on the basis of zero evidence. You must be joking. Before you comment I suggest you do some research.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ G152 (111 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    Yeah, there’s nothing like a nice toothy smile on a corpse in a coffin.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. stephieboy (3,399 comments) says:

    Sorry need to reword my post above a bit ,

    Judith,

    1. Flouride is not necessary in water to kill bacteria.??

    It’s chloride . Fluoride is put there to prevent dental decay which has proven to be most successful.

    UT, predictable from you. But tell me in Tauranga the water is not fluoridated. In Auckland it is.

    Show me the empirical evidence that Aucklanders suffer from the alleged harmful effects of fluoride such as nerotoxcity , cancer and lower I Qs etc. compared to Tauranga residents .?
    The claims about serious side effects and harm would standout.
    But they don’t/
    Why.?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    https://www.patrickholford.com/blog/millions-awarded-for-autism-vaccine-damage

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. georgedarroch (318 comments) says:

    The Kedgely statement is a decade old. Kevin Hague is *very* much in favour of vaccination.

    Ross, no medical technique is absolutely safe. Planes are extremely safe, but extremely occasionally one will have a failure as the result of a design fault or pilot error, and compensation will be awarded. Should we stop flying as a result?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    In the US there’s been more than 3000 successful claims re vaccine-induced injuries at a cost of more than $2 billion.

    http://www.vacfacts.info/national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program—payout-data.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. srylands (414 comments) says:

    “In relation to DPFs comments regarding candidates views on vaccination I can only point to the views of one Mr Tat Loo chiropractor and candidate for labour who spreads vile misinformed lies at the standard on this issue.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-04072014/#comment-844398

    Tat Loo is really out to lunch on a other issues too. I guess he has a low list ranking, but still… is this the type of candidate Labour really wants? His advocates for fiscal orthodoxy to be abandoned and that the Government should pay for major projects through issuing currency. He is also pretty nasty judging by his blog diatribes.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/the-budget-and-the-christchurch-rebuild/#comment-815671

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ stephieboy (1,927 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    Yes I know that Stephieboy – I was answering an earlier post that seemed to indicate that fluoride was needed to get rid of bacteria.

    I know fluoride works, to a certain degree, but it doesn’t work fully if a person has poor dental hygiene and allows sugary foods, especially things like dried fruit, to stay on their teeth.

    I’ve got a full set of teeth that have needed very little work and I’m 56. Its only been in the last ten years that I have lived where fluoride is in the water. Where I live there are young kids with rotten black holes in the front teeth – so clearly fluoride isn’t a total cure.

    A person can still have good teeth without fluoride, and as fluoride can be taken by choice if separate to the water supply, then that is my preference. People should be able to decide for themselves, when there is the slightest chance that the chemical could be harmful.

    I mentioned my dog. She was getting lumps from toxins not being filtered by her kidneys. We changed her drinking water to natural water, no additives, and the problem went away within a week. I’m not convinced on the fluoride debate.

    The immunisation one is different.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    Georgedarroch

    Everyone knows that planes are not totally safe and that there is a risk of death or injury. Some people refuse to fly because they believe the risk is too high. But we have DPF being his usual mocking self and trying to suggest there is no risk with vaccines. That is simply false.

    Parents should have the right to be fully-informed about the risks of vaccines and should be able to say no without any adverse consequences from others.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ross001

    Patrick Holford…really ?

    Patrick also claims to have miracle multivitamin cures for almost anything. Not feeling mentally acute? Let’s see what his advice is on improving you memory and concentration:

    Here are five easy steps you can take now to help keep your mind and memory sharp:
    1. Read my book ‘Optimum Nutrition for the Mind’ £12.99
    2. Join 100% Health today and you can have this book at a members discounted price.
    3. Have a personal nutrition consultation.
    4. Attend my 100% Health Weekend Workshop
    5. Follow my Brain Friendly Diet and supplement programme.

    Let’s see what his advice on avoiding cancer is:

    Here are five easy steps you can take now to say no to cancer:
    1. Read my book ‘Say No to Cancer’ – £6.99
    2. Join 100% Health today and this book can be yours for free.
    3. Have a personal nutrition consultation.
    4. Attend my 100% Health Weekend Workshop
    5. Follow my ‘Say No to Cancer’ Diet and supplement programme.

    I think there might be a pattern here.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/mmr-and-autism-rises-from-the-dead/

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    What you seem to be saying is that the courts are quite happy to award millions of dollars on the basis of zero evidence.

    And?

    Judges aren’t scientists, and juries are even more ignorant.

    No amount of litigation will change the scientifically proven fact that vaccines don’t cause autism.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Parents should have the right to be fully-informed about the risks of vaccines and should be able to say no without any adverse consequences from others.

    They should have the right to be fully informed that vaccines dont cause autism.

    The “adverse consequences” they experience are well deserved as they are placing extreme costs on others, so fuck them.

    You’re demanding that they should be free to impose costs on others, and that we should all applaud their incredible selfishness, so fuck you too.

    The sooner you non-vaccinating cunts remove yourselves from the gene pool the better.

    If I could, I would invent a vaccine-reversal technology, so that you non-vaccinators can have the protections you have already enjoyed removed. Then I would get some vaccinated kid with mumps to cough in your cornflakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. srylands (414 comments) says:

    “Parents should have the right to be fully-informed about the risks of vaccines and should be able to say no without any adverse consequences from others.”

    I disagree. There should be consequences for these parents.

    You need to draw the line on stupidity somewhere if that stupidity affects children or others in the community. We don’t allow parents to treat their kids with cancer by rubbing toads on them. Neither should we allow parents to mindlessly withhold vaccinations.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ross001

    “Parents should have the right to be fully-informed about the risks of vaccines and should be able to say no without any adverse consequences from others.”

    They are informed – here is the public health sheet we distribute in Auckland there are other available as well of course.

    http://www.arphs.govt.nz/Portals/0/Health%20Information/Communicable%20Disease/Measles/Fact%20Sheets/Facts%20sheets%202011/October%202011%20fact%20sheets/Immunisation%20with%20MMR%20Vaccine%20-%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

    Unfortunately idiots such as yourself who spread malicious half truths and outright lies have spooked parents over the last couple of decades many of whom have no recollection of the pre vaccination era – God help us all if we ever have to return to those times of infectious disease outbreaks spreading through communities like wildfire, our hospitals and GPs would be quickly overwhelmed and we have situations where schools would be closed down for weeks at a time.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @ross001

    “Parents should have the right to be fully-informed about the risks of vaccines and should be able to say no without any adverse consequences from others.”

    —————————

    Nobody denies there is a small risk of adverse reactions to vaccines. But the benefits massively outweigh the risks.

    Parents should be able to say no to vaccines. But the consequence should be that they’re restricted from using public facilities shared with other children – as the risk they pose to other unvaccinated children is real and non-trivial. I believe that most kindergartens operate on this principle.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    “there should be consequences for those parents.”

    What a silly statement. There should be consequences for keeping parents in the dark about the risk of vaccines. And comparing cancer to vaccinations is dumb even by your standards srylands.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. ross001 (221 comments) says:

    Parents should be able to say no to vaccines. But the consequence should be that they’re restricted from using public facilities shared with other children – as the risk they pose to other unvaccinated children is real and non-trivial. I believe that most kindergartens operate on this principle.

    So when medical experts talk about herd immunity, they’re really talking through a hole in their arse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    So when medical experts talk about herd immunity, they’re really talking through a hole in their arse?

    First you must describe what you understand the term “herd immunity” to mean.

    Because you obviously dont understand it at all, and certainly not well enough to critique anyone else’s understanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ross001

    “So when medical experts talk about herd immunity, they’re really talking through a hole in their arse?”

    Sigh…..

    “When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as “community immunity.”

    http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/pages/communityimmunity.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. srylands (414 comments) says:

    “And comparing cancer to vaccinations is dumb even by your standards srylands.”

    Really? And stating that parents should be able to withhold vaccinations is not dumb?

    Withholding cancer treatment is tragic for the child involved, but at least the tragedy is confined. Withholding routine vaccinations could, as Northshoredoc points out be a tragedy for all of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @ross001

    Herd immunity is a model that addresses disease transmission in a population. Large populations of immunised people mean that each person has a lower chance of coming into contact with a disease carrier. Not coincidentally – this is the same outcome that occurs when non-immunised children are restricted from using shared facilities.

    One of the reasons I’m in favour of vaccinations is because I developed measles during my fourth form year at high school (I was vaccinated as an infant but it was later discovered that measles vaccines needed to be given at an older age to ensure immunity). It was a horrific and debilitating illness that required me to be admitted to Auckland Hospital for treatment and I can still remember the vivid and horrific hallucinations it induced during the fever phase. It horrifies me that people think this is a minor illness.

    My chances of contracting measles would have been lessened by higher rates of vaccination.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @srylands

    Please note I am arguing for all those who can be vaccinated to get themselves or their children vaccinated not promoting compulsory vaccination. Although if we continue to have these outbreaks of measles i might get to that point.

    it is interesting to note that there has been a huge demand for vaccination during the last several outbreaks in NZ which suggests to me that a large proportion of those non vaccinated is due to forgetfulness on the part of the parents and local health centres rather than any anti vaccination sentiment on the part of their caregivers.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Alan Wilkinson (1,889 comments) says:

    I can never understand why this debate never takes the next logical step. Yes, statistically the odds heavily favour vaccination. But there are a small number of serious adverse reactions. Surely there is an onus on the industry to take the next step and identify the factors whether genetic or clinical that trigger those adverse reactions?

    Not only would patient safety be improved but so would the confidence of parents in the industry.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    Actually this does occur to some extent under what are called Phase IV pharmacoviligance programmes whereby all and any significant adverse events are followed up to see if there are any commonalities. As the serious adverse reactions to the vaccine we are talking about in this forum are so low there has been no common factor identified in those 1: 1 million who have an ADR of encephalitis.

    Sometimes it’s the same as when a patient asks why them when you’ve just told them they’ve got a tumour, sadly much of the time (excluding where they are a smoker or such like) it’s just plain bad luck.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @Alan Wilkinson

    There is ongoing research in that area.

    No company wants to produce vaccines that cause adverse reactions and there is considerable pressure to develop formulations that are safer while remaining equally effective.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    Chris:I suspect that the occurrence of so many more allergies (and other things like coeliac) are caused from our namby-pambyness these days about how pregnant women shouldn’t eat this and they shouldn’t eat that, and thereby never exposing the foetus to these things.

    The increasing rate of food allergies is due to vitamin D deficiency. Oddly, one study found that too much vitamin D can also increase the rate of food allergies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Not only would patient safety be improved but so would the confidence of parents in the industry.

    Patient safety is being improved.

    And no, nothing changes in the confidence of parents.

    That’s because liars and frauds looking to trade children’s lives for their own egotistical purposes will not change their behaviour. They cannot be persuaded by science. In fact, they treat people with a good knowledge of the science as inherently untrustworthy!

    They are scum, and should be held to account for their selfish harming of children.

    They are the Rolf Harris’s of public health.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. stephieboy (3,399 comments) says:

    Judith (7,034 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 1:09 pm
    Sure people can have good teeth without fluoride but fluoride does greatly help if you e.g ask around dental professionals in Auckland.There is a definite reduction in dental decay but of course that does not mean that you can sit back and abuse your teeth with sugary drinks and foods.
    Serious tooth decay is most often associated in poor families and communities where there is often poor attention to diet and eating as well as dental hygiene .
    But there is absolutely no evidence that those who have fluoridated water suffer the alleged side effects like neuro toxicity, lower I Qs ,Osteo sarcoma cancers etc, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Alan Wilkinson (1,889 comments) says:

    @Northshoredoc, yes, but “we don’t know why” should be followed up with some strategy to find out why.

    @gump, but note that the vaccines can be made safer simply by screening out patients who are likely to suffer an adverse reaction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Alan Wilkinson (1,889 comments) says:

    @Kimble, I don’t believe that. I think most anti-vaccine parents are genuinely concerned for their children though probably incapable of properly assessing risk and reliability. I do think it is not acceptable as a permanent state of affairs that vaccination risk should simply be accepted as a statistical game of chance. Science has the ability to determine risk factors for individuals and that needs to be pursued.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @Alan Wilkinson

    Yes which is why we do genetic testing now in cancer patients for many of the tumour types and screen family members for known genetic risk factors.

    Also why we exclude certain groups from taking vaccines as per the Auckland public health brochure i posted above.

    Regarding properly assessing risk and reliability this is done however we will unlikely ever be in a position whereby all risk can be removed which appears to be what you’re suggesting ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @Alan Wilkinson

    There is literally no way to screen out patients who are at greater risk of vaccine related ADRs (aside from obvious factors like immune system disorders).

    The reactions are – to the best of our currently available knowledge – almost entirely random.

    Edit – please be aware that I’m not a hea professional, and I don’t follow the latest research in this area.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    The anti vac parents are ignorant wankers who freeload on the effort and risks taken by others .
    Not only the companies that produce vaccines but the governments place huge resources into continued improvement and reducing risks.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0264410X94903158

    Immunizations against most vaccine-preventable diseases will be needed indefinitely unless the disease is eradicated. Public acceptance of immunizations may be threatened as vaccine coverage increases and disease decreases, however, due to the increase in both causally and coincidentally related vaccine adverse events. The post-marketing surveillance for such events in the USA in response to the mandatory reporting requirements of the National Childhood Injury Act of 1986. While V AERS has many methodological limitations intrinsic to such systems, it can play an important role in helping to monitor vaccine safety and maintain public confidence in immunizations.

    http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78%282%29205.pdf

    This document provides information on adverse events following immunisation reported to the
    Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM)
    for scheduled vaccines over the past five years
    (spontaneous reports). It also provides a summary of the reporting process and sets out how
    vaccine safety is monitored in New Zealand.

    http://www.who.int/immunization_safety/global_committee/Global_Vaccine_Safety_GACVS_June_09.pdf

    Vaccines have contributed enormously in reducing the impact of many infectious diseases, and
    the expanded use of new and existing vaccines provides unprecedented potential for further
    reducing the global burden of infectious diseases. Yet, as with the deployment of other
    technologies, their use may also sometimes be associated with undesirable effects that need
    to be identified rapidly, understood and minimized. In this article, we review the models and
    systems that have been developed to monitor and respond to concerns regarding vaccine safety
    and we give illustrative examples of real or perceived vaccine safety issues. The Global Advisory
    Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) was set up 10 years ago and charged to provide the
    WHO with independent advice on vaccine safety issues. The role of the GACVS is both to analyze
    and to interpret reports of the adverse effects of vaccines that impact on global vaccination
    programs and strategies, and to foster the development of improved surveillance systems to
    detect any adverse effects of vaccines

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Science has the ability to determine risk factors for individuals and that needs to be pursued.

    Last point first, it is being pursued. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

    @Kimble, I don’t believe that. I think most anti-vaccine parents are genuinely concerned for their children though probably incapable of properly assessing risk and reliability.

    The people I am talking about are the ones who prey on concerned parents, telling them lies about vaccines to boost their own egos. I dont bother to distinguish between ignorance and malice, because that is irrelevant.

    I do think it is not acceptable as a permanent state of affairs that vaccination risk should simply be accepted as a statistical game of chance.

    Everything is a statistical game of chance. The odds though have been moved massively in our favour thanks to vaccination. And now a selfish scumbag element is trying to tilt the game back.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. marcw (255 comments) says:

    For those who think not immunising your children is your right and is OK, I challenge you to read these two news reports from the NZ Herald – and remember this happened in NZ, and it was less than 2 years ago.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10855638

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860122

    So, how do you feel now – imagine if this was your child?

    I used to work in the medical area, and saw this type of child abuse far far too often.
    There are genuine reasons why (but rarely) immunisation is contraindicated. Most times it is just parental ignorance.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. stephieboy (3,399 comments) says:

    Quack watch on misconceptions about Immunizations,

    http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu00.html

    and the Mercury Toxicity scam,

    http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    stephieboy (1,934 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    Sure people can have good teeth without fluoride but fluoride does greatly help

    As you say, it is possible to have good teeth without fluoride, but fluoride does help.

    For every professional that says it is okay, there is one saying it is not. The debate is fairly divided.

    The main problem I have with this debate is that yet it is another case of the Government providing – instead of people being responsible for their own teeth, the government takes over, and again we are given the impression that we don’t need to make an effort.

    Whether it is good for people or not, it encourages laziness, and the concept that the government will take care of it.
    Along with paid maternity leave, welfare, WFF, and so on – adding fluoride to the water is just more of the same, ‘don’t worry, we’ll do it for you’. We wonder why we have so many people that won’t take responsibility for themselves, and their families, and we complain because we have to pay welfare etc to those that think they are entitled to it.

    Well a policy that adds some chemical to the water that is NOT essential to life, is just more of the same.

    Vitamin C is good to keep people healthy and proven to protect from colds etc, should the government be providing that, and what about the flu jab? Should we all be made to get that too – free of charge of course – hell, why don’t we just stick the stuff in the water, and that way none of us need to think for ourselves. In fact, why doesn’t the government just add all the nutrition everyone needs to the water – and provide us with diapers. Because that is the way we’re heading.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    For every professional that says it is okay, there is one saying it is not. The debate is fairly divided.

    No, there isn’t. And no, it isn’t.

    That is another lie promoted by anti-flouride campaigners.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimble (4,305 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    Excuse me, but a simple internet search says otherwise. There is a fairly reasonable spread of information for and against on the internet. Maybe they are not people you’d like to listen to, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and they don’t know what they are talking about. As I said, the debate is fairly spread (in number).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ Judith

    The MoH and the NZ Dental Association both support water fluoridation who are those in NZ on the other side of the debate ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Excuse me, but a simple internet search says otherwise.

    And if that is the extent of your analysis then source of your ignorance is revealed, but is no more forgiveable.

    The debate is not fairly spread in number. There are a bunch of people on one side, and a minority on the other. The majority view is only vocally DEFENDED by enough to counteract the minority.

    By your reckoning the “debate” about evolution is evenly split because for every creationist website, there is an “evolutionist” website pointing out how wrong the creationists are.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Northshoredoc (9 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    I don’t really care who is in favour of it. My body, my children, my choice. It’s not as if there isn’t another way to take the fluoride if you want to. If you’re that keen on it, then purchase it and use it. But if a person isn’t, they should have the right not to. When you put it in the water you remove that right.

    I’ve seen many smokers on here argue that it is up to them what they put in their bodies – its freedom of choice, and their right to decide – but in the fluoride debate you are removing that right – you are not giving people the right to take care of their teeth naturally if they want to.

    That is not fair. If fluoride is so good – then let people decide that – educate them, and let them be responsible for their own teeth.

    @ Kimble

    I don’t care what you think the numbers are. There is enough information out there that indicates plenty of people, including professionals doubt the safety of fluoride. I’m not advocating they don’t allow people to take fluoride, I’m saying it is up to the individual to decide if they want to take it or not. If there was no other way of consuming it, other than put it in the water supply, you’d have an argument – but as there is, you don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Northshoredoc (9 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    The MoH once advocated thalidomide for morning sickness. Excuse me if I’m not convinced they always know exactly what they are talking about, and reserve my right to seek alternative information. And I’m not disputing that it is good for the teeth, of course the dental assoc approves, but then, what would they know about other health concerns, they’re dentists.

    The problem is, I don’t have the right to choose one way or the other, because it is forced upon me, and I have no say in whether I choose it, or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @Judith

    If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then we need to ask why does the Government supply water to houses?

    Supplying water to houses means that “we don’t need to make an effort” and “encourages laziness”.

    But nobody argues against it since the benefit to society is so large. Fluoridation is supported for largely the same reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    I don’t care what you think the numbers are. There is enough information out there that indicates plenty of people, including professionals doubt the safety of fluoride.

    You havent provided any numbers. You have merely asserted that they are equal.

    “Plenty” of people may doubt the safety of flouride. But plentiful or not, they are still a minority. Even if SOME professionals are on their side, they are still a minority.

    I dont give a crap about what your position is. When you say that “For every professional that says it is okay, there is one saying it is not” and that “the debate is fairly divided” you are lying.

    If you are going to lie about that, then why should anyone bother listening to anything else you have to say? It is probably going to be more lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    gump (1,434 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    Water is essential to life. Fluoride is not. People can survive without it, and even have good teeth.

    IF there was no other way of taking fluoride, I’d have to agree, but as there is, you can take as much of it as you like, but you have no right to force me to take it. You are removing peoples right to decide for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    The MoH once advocated thalidomide for morning sickness. Excuse me if I’m not convinced they always know exactly what they are talking about.

    Did they? Did they REALLY? And what changed their minds?

    Even if they did, it is pretty arrogant to think that you would have known about the dangers of thalidomide before scientists did.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @Judith

    “The MoH once advocated thalidomide for morning sickness”

    ——————————-

    And they changed their mind once compelling evidence was found that linked it to birth defects. That’s how science works – new information is incorporated once it becomes known.

    Over sixty years of research has failed to link municipal fluoridation to illness. So we have no reason to think otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @judith

    If you don’t want fluoride in your water you’ll have to drink bottled or filtered water that is the only way to ensure it is free of fluoride.

    At the expense of repeating myself yet again the reason we fluoridate water is that it has been proven to be beneficial from a community perspective in relation to tooth decay which is and was serious issue in NZ we can see this is still a significant problem in those regions that don’t fluoridate their water and Yes as any good dentist will tell you no amount of fluoridation will remove the risk of drinking and eating rubbish and not brushing your teeth.

    Regarding thalidomide – I don’t think the MoH ever recommended thalidomide during the late 1950s 60s when it became available, yes that medication was a disaster and was the reason we now have a very thorough regulatory and registration environment before new medications are allowed on the market.

    Have you got that list of reputable authorities who don’t recommend the fluoridation of water supplies in NZ yet ?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimble (4,309 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Take all the damn fluoride you like Kimble, no one is stopping you. You can buy the pills and take them once a minute if you like – but you have no right to force something that is not essential to life, on anyone else, regardless of who you can get to support your argument.

    The fact there is another way to take it, and it doesn’t have to be in the water, means that putting it in the water supply is not necessary. If you are too lazy to make the effort – then poor you – but don’t expect everyone else to have to deal with your laziness.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @Judith

    “IF there was no other way of taking fluoride, I’d have to agree, but as there is, you can take as much of it as you like, but you have no right to force me to take it. You are removing peoples right to decide for themselves.”

    ——————————-

    Nobody forces you to drink tap water. You make the choice to drink it.

    It the issue bothers you then go and buy a roof tank or a water purifier. Both are readily available.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    The problem is, I don’t have the right to choose one way or the other, because it is forced upon me, and I have no say in whether I choose it, or not.

    Yes you do. You CHOOSE to get your water from the public provider.

    You can disconnect your house from mains supply and source water elsewhere.

    All you are objecting to is the cost of not taking flouride. More specifically, you are complaining that the cost of no taking flouride does not exceed the cost of taking it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Northshoredoc (10 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    Excuse me, now you not only want to make people take fluoride, you now expect them to run around and get lists for you, just because you demand it? Just exactly who do you think you are?

    As I said, you can take all the fluoride you like, but just because you are lazy and don’t want to have to go to the bother of doing that, why should other people, who don’t want to take, have to? Why should I accomodate your laziness?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ Judith I though you commented that there was as much reliable evidence from reliable sources against fluoridation as there was for it ?

    As I commented even if we didn’t fluoridate water there would still be fluoride in the water out of your tap in many parts of the country how do you propose to decrease this assault on your rights ?

    Have we done anything to convince you on the vaccination issue, it appears that we have failed on fluoride.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @Judith

    You made an assertion that you are unable or unwilling to substantiate. And somebody has called you out for doing so.

    You can provide us with material that supports your assertion or you can withdraw the assertion – that’s how debating works.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimble (4,311 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    What a load of shit you talk Kimble. That’s not what I’m saying at all.

    I’m saying that unless it is a matter of life or death, I should have the right to decide whether I take something that improves my teeth or not. Having chemicals in water than reduces bacteria is vital to life – having fluoride is not. It might be vital to people who are too lazy to address their own personal needs, such as yourself, but to others, who make the effort, they are capable of seeing to their own needs, in accordance with what they want.

    Admit it, you’re just too damn lazy to bother, and so you expect everyone else to be just like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ gump (1,437 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    I’m sorry gump, I didn’t realise you were the debating monitor.

    This subject has been debated many times on this board. If you do a search you can find the links that have been provided by others to examples of groups and professionals who have an opinion either way on the subject.

    If you are too lazy to do that for yourself, then I’m not surprised that you are also too lazy to take your own fluoride.

    Either way, you know there is plenty of disagreance over the subject and you know there is plenty of evidence of that on the web – so you’re just being factious – and frankly my dear, screw you and your ‘correct procedures’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    I’m saying that unless it is a matter of life or death, I should have the right to decide whether I take something that improves my teeth or not.

    Sure. And everyone gets to decide that. And if there is something provided by one central supplier, and more people want that something than not, then it ought to satisfy their desires, and the people with the opposite opinion can take care of themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ Judith suggest you have a cup of tea – it’s that time of the day for me.

    Also if you’re in the mood can you tell me what issue you have with fluoride as our water is supplemented to well below levels where there would be any toxicity and if the truth be known many people who be ingesting far more fluoride in their diet completely separate from any tap water intake.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Northshoredoc (11 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    No, you haven’t done anything to convince me. I’m 56, I have five children and grandchildren. I take their health needs very seriously, so naturally have already done all the research necessary to allow me to make an informed decision. My children and grandchildren are immunised.

    They also all have beautiful teeth. Even the older ones, they’ve never been given fluoride. When they were growing up we lived in a rural environment. Good dental hygiene, and a healthy diet ! Works better than any chemical for the lazy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. RRM (10,018 comments) says:

    I wonder if David Bain was immunised as a child?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Northshoredoc (12 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    Don’t drink tea or coffee, but have a nice bottle of spring water here! :P

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    Ah well c’est la vie Chooky, as I said there’s a cuppa awaiting.

    You’ll have to avoid the vegetables as well if you want to exclude fluoride completely.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ RRM (9,370 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    Oh you poor obsessed we thing. Do you think you’ll ever get over your obsession with David Bain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Northshoredoc (13 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    My issue is, its not necessary. When we start adding things to the water that can be consumed in another way, we make people not think consciously about being personally responsible for their own well-being. I believe it is a slippery slope that starts rebounding in other areas of life. The result being that people stop making the effort and expect the government and others to take the responsibility that they should have for themselves and their families.

    It is also sets a precedence – what else will they start adding? Something to make our skin softer, so we all look a little better? Unless it is essential to life (e.g. bacteria eradication) then nothing should be added.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. mikenmild (11,719 comments) says:

    I reckon we’d all be a lot happier if the government added Prozac to the water supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild (10,374 comments) says:
    July 7th, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    Why stop there, why not viagra as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. mikenmild (11,719 comments) says:

    Compulsorily medicate kids with viagra? Are you crazy?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    Welcome to the world of trying to combat uncritical thinking.
    AGW has the same depth of debate.
    On one side 97 % of the trained experts almost all the published science and all major scientific bodies.
    On the other a minority made up of mostly wingnut blogs and moon bats with a barrow to push.
    Fluoride dosing is actually slightly more controversial in the literature.
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. chris (647 comments) says:

    Do you realise that fluoride occurs naturally in water, Judith? I’m not arguing either way about whether more should be added to the town supply, just pointing out a fact. What tends to happen in these debates is people start going on about the chemicals in stuff, making out that anything that is a “chemical” is nasty.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Fentex (1,037 comments) says:

    No amount of litigation will change the scientifically proven fact that vaccines don’t cause autism.

    While I agree with this sentiment I don’t agree with this statement – using the words “Proof” and/or “Prove” is problematic at the best of times.

    This sentiment is better expressed; Careful study of the available evidence provides no reason to suspect vaccines contribute to autism and no credible mechanism for such an effect is hypothesised by opponents of vaccination. While there is considerable evidence that an absence of vaccination is dangerous to the health of everyone.

    Science isn’t dogmatic thus it seldom proves anything – it is a methodology for improving our knowledge of the natural world. Proof is a concept best left to the rarefied atmosphere of mathematics.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    This sentiment is better expressed; Careful study of the available evidence provides no reason to suspect vaccines contribute to autism and no credible mechanism for such an effect is hypothesised by opponents of vaccination.

    No.

    There is nothing to be gained by couching the sentiment in more correct but less emphatic terms.

    Anti-vaccers dont deserve to be spoken to civilly. They dont deserve to benefit from the brakes on your car.

    They haven’t merely “failed to provide suitable evidence for their claims”. They are wrong and they are constantly lying to people who care about their kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What part of “vaccine preservative may contain a neurotoxin” is a lie, Kimble?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Griff (8,194 comments) says:

    What part of “vaccine preservative may contain a neurotoxin” is a lie, Kimble?

    o2 is a neurotoxin
    Severe cases can result in cell damage and death, with effects most often seen in the central nervous system, lungs and eyes

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    o2 is a neurotoxin

    How many papers are there which identify o2 as a real hazard?

    Researchers predominantly from Scandinavia and Canada have demonstrated in animal models that mercury from teeth can spread to the internal organs, including the brain, within four weeks. The dissemination is proportionate to the number of fillings, the total surface area of the amalgam fillings and the amount of chewing.15,16,17 Kidney poisoning can be measured easily in these experiments and has been confirmed.18 A number of additional researchers have shown a correlation between the amount of mercury in the brain of autopsy specimens and the extent of disease.19,20 It has been postulated that the mercury evaporates in elemental form from the surface of the amalgams. Chewing, mechanical brushing, rough amalgam surfaces and the presence of hot liquids in the mouth contribute. The mercury is absorbed through the respiratory sinuses and airway, binding chemically in the body and thus entering the cells, causing toxicity. The research supporting this perspective is convincing.21,22

    http://www.dormanpub.com/reFrame.asp?page=/articles/display.asp?ID=113

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @UT

    Thiomersal is mercury-based preservative used in some vaccines to prevent bacterial contamination. All of the scientific evidence available to date suggests that thiomersal in vaccines has never caused any harm.

    Furthermore no National Immunisation Schedule vaccines used in New Zealand, including MMR, contain thiomersal.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    What part of “vaccine preservative may contain a neurotoxin” is a lie, Kimble?

    The part where you leave out all the non-scary reality which informs people that while neurotoxin SOUNDS dangerous it actually wont harm them.

    What you said is a lie in the same way that “air contains a neurotoxin” is a lie, and if you are telling people that vaccines are linked to autism in the hopes that they wont have their child vaccinated, then you are a disgusting piece of shit and I hope you die choking on your own severed dick.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Lucia Maria (2,609 comments) says:

    My 13 year old has a friend who has just broken one of his arms again. I’ve lost track of how many times this poor kid has broken his arms (though it helped reduce the number of times he was able to punch my boy when they were both 4 years old). Anyway, their street, apparently, has a high fluoride concentration in the water. Residents have complained to the council to no avail.

    From what I know about fluoride, it can cause over hardness of the bones (including teeth) and therefore increase the number of bone breakages, especially in the elderly. For this reason alone, it should be removed from the water supply so that anyone wants to avoid it, can do so easily.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    From what I know about fluoride, it can cause over hardness of the bones (including teeth) and therefore increase the number of bone breakages, especially in the elderly.

    One more anecdote from a lay person to throw on to the pile.

    So the extra flouride in the water CAUSED this problem? Gosh, you would think that if this was common, that there would be many more examples of this, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:How many papers are there which identify o2 as a real hazard?

    Oxygen toxicity

    Plenty of papers on hyperoxia published.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Alan Wilkinson (1,889 comments) says:

    @Kimble: “Everything is a statistical game of chance.” Wrong or at best misleading. Scientific knowledge allows predictions of the odds and understanding of the influential factors. Mass medication is a game of chance. Tailored medication alters the odds significantly. When I see vaccination programmes screening out unsuitable high risk patients I will believe the issue is being properly addressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. TM (100 comments) says:

    There’s no point entering a vaccination argument. Just like AGW. I think there are a few good criticisms of both, but believing there is a full on conspiracy from “big pharma” or gravy train scientists is completely mental. Afterall, what has science done for us apart from give us just about everything in our modern world.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Chiz, can you identify a single real world example where excessive o2 is a hazard?

    (As opposed to going to your dentist & getting some extra mercury from the amalgam, or getting it from a vaccine containing Thimerosal)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    believing there is a full on conspiracy from “big pharma” or gravy train scientists is completely mental

    Do you know about the relationship between eugenics, Canegie-Mellon, and fluoride?

    Afterall, what has science done for us apart from give us just about everything in our modern world.

    Like thalidomide, you mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    “When I see vaccination programmes screening out unsuitable high risk patients I will believe the issue is being properly addressed.”

    I’m not sure where you get the idea this isn’t done in NZ at present.

    E.g for MMR we follow the following recommendations..

    http://immunisation.book.health.govt.nz/11+Measles/11.6+Contraindications+and+precautions

    You also asked a question previously regarding safety monitoring – the NZ university study covers this quite well IMO.

    http://www.immune.org.nz/safety-monitoring

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @uglytruth

    The Thalidomide debacle which occurred over half a century ago is one of the reasons why we have the regulatory controls that have been in place for many decades, most especially regarding use of new medications in pregnancy and testing for teratogenicity.

    Also interesting that thalidomide is still widely used in certain illnesses.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    “Chiz, can you identify a single real world example where excessive o2 is a hazard?”

    Try SCUBA diving with high O2 levels in the tank.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    UglyTruth is mental.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    Chiz, can you identify a single real world example where excessive o2 is a hazard?

    Go click on the Oxygen Toxicity link:

    Oxygen toxicity is a concern for underwater divers, those on high concentrations of supplemental oxygen (particularly premature babies), and those undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

    Then read this about the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial (SUPPORT) trial which was designed to try and determine the optimal level of oxygen to give to premature infants that would lead to maximum survival without damage.

    Oxygen toxicity is a real problem and scientists are doing real research on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    @Northshoredoc,

    The side effects of thalidomide were easy to identify. This isn’t always the case for neurotoxicity.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I see that you are still lying for the conspiracy, Contrarian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ UT … from a clinical perspective yes side effects of neurotoxicty certainly are easy to identify.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc – look it up

    a kid on my street breaks bones and we have fluoride in the water – must be related – utter and complete bollocks

    ditto illness after vaccines – even more illogical bollocks.

    Allow me to introduce you to the concept of coincidence.

    It’s why you often get better after seeing the doctor even if he does nothing.

    Herd immunisation is an oxymoron – game theory says that if everyone else immunises their children you should not immunise yours as there probably is a very small chance of damage from the vaccine. However, immunisation reduces damage much more than any potential damage from the vaccine itself in people as a group. It is only effective if immunisation is the norm – I do not want disease ridden kids in my vicinity – if they want to be near me or my family they have to be immunised. If they can be ill without causing danger to me or mine then I would not give a toss. They can’t – this is about public responsibility and the greater good – suck it up and get the jab.

    This is not rocket science – fluoride is different as you are unlikely to kill me or mine with your bad teeth – then again – my taxes probably pay for your dental treatment so fuck you – drink the water if you want my taxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @slijmbal

    “This is not rocket science – fluoride is different as you are unlikely to kill me or mine with your bad teeth – then again – my taxes probably pay for your dental treatment so fuck you – drink the water if you want my taxes.”

    LOL .. harsh but fair comment, can I steal it for future use ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    from a clinical perspective yes side effects of neurotoxicty certainly are easy to identify.

    How would you identify the effects of fluoride accumulation in the pineal gland from a clinical perspective?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Alan Wilkinson (1,889 comments) says:

    @NorthShoreDoc, thanks. It would be good to publicise the first link and those like it better. Also to report on the results and discoveries of the monitoring systems described in the second link to give the public confidence they are in fact producing results.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @UT

    The WHO Neurobehavioural Core Test Battery is usually preferred.

    @ Contrarian

    “UglyTruth is mental.”

    Quite possibly he/she/it does seem to jump from one weird thing to the next.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc – look it up

    Ignorance of the evidence – look it up

    http://fluoridealert.org/content/ifin-138/

    In human trials with patients with osteoporosis, it has been shown that high doses of fluoride (40 -75 mg per day) lead to more brittle bones and increased hip fracture rates (Hedlund, 1989, Riggs et , 1990).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    Hi Alan

    ‘It would be good to publicise the first link and those like it better. Also to report on the results and discoveries of the monitoring systems described in the second link to give the public confidence they are in fact producing results.’

    I agree completely, although there’s been a study done (there’s a study for everything these days) which showed that the more information you provided to convince anti immunisation persons the more anti they became.

    PS I’m not putting you in the anti group more those that create websites dedicated to wild claims or conspiracies and the like.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @Northshoredoc

    I gift you my utterances

    UT is a conspiracy theorist from way back peering out from his tin foil hat long enough to post any old trolling shit from the internet proving Elvis is still alive, JFK was killed by aliens, 9/11 was a US plot and no-one ever made it to the moon. Don’t feed the troll is my advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    @ UT

    “In human trials with patients with osteoporosis, it has been shown that high doses of fluoride (40 -75 mg per day) lead to more brittle bones and increased hip fracture rates (Hedlund, 1989, Riggs et , 1990).”

    Now work out how much water that would mean would need to be ingested at NZ fluoridation levels… I’ll give you a clue it’s rather a lot

    edit @slijmbal – fair point I’ll let him play with himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    NorthShoredoc:

    You said: “from a clinical perspective yes side effects of neurotoxicty certainly are easy to identify.”

    But you apparently have no clue what the effects are of a known neurotoxin are on a gland which is known to accumulate this poison.

    Quack quack quack…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. big bruv (14,149 comments) says:

    Northshoredoc

    “Also interesting that thalidomide is still widely used in certain illnesses.”

    I remember hearing that a while back. What is thalidomide used as a treatment for anyway?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    .. post any old trolling shit from the internet proving Elvis is still alive, JFK was killed by aliens, 9/11 was a US plot and no-one ever made it to the moon.

    slijmbal, the closest you came to telling the truth there is that elements withing the US administration were involved in carrying out the attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    edit @slijmbal – fair point I’ll let him play with himself.

    Right, doc, run away after you’ve been caught talking shit about identifying the effects of neurotoxins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    Thalidomide is used in treating one of the complications of leprosy, and some cancers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. publicwatchdog (2,819 comments) says:

    Here’s some research that I did on the issue of fluoridation of public water supplies:

    ‘Open Letters’/ OIAs request to the Prime Minister’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Dr Peter Gluckman and the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall:

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/

    September 5, 2013 | Author Penny

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS AND REPLIES RE: FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES, FROM:
    1) THE PRIME MINISTER’S ‘CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR’ PROFESSOR SIR PETER GLUCKMAN
    2) THE MINISTER OF HEALTH TONY RYALL
    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST RE: FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES TO:
    1) THE PRIME MINISTER’S ‘CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR’ PROFESSOR SIR PETER GLUCKMAN
    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    12 June 2013

    ‘Open Letter’ / OIA to Professor Sir Peter Gluckman from Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright:

    “Upon what ‘science’ are you relying to support fluoride in water?”

    OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, KNZM FRSNZ FMedSci FRS
    Chief Science Advisor

    Dear Professor,

    I read with interest your following ‘Media Release’:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1306/S00035/sir-peter-gluckman-statement-of-flouride.htm
    “Media release

    12 June 2013

    “The science of fluoride in water is effectively settled. It has been one of the most thoroughly worked questions in public health science over many decades,” says Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.

    In a statement released today on the issue of fluoride in public water supplies, Sir Peter reiterates the scientific facts, saying “it is absolutely clear that at doses used in New Zealand to adjust the natural level to one that is consistent with beneficial effects (0.7-1.0mg/litre), there is no health risk from fluoride in the water.”

    So why is there any issue at all?

    Sir Peter points to the importance of the values debate around fluoridation, but warns that this should not be misrepresented as a scientific debate. …”
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Can you please provide the information which confirms you have read the following research:

    1) http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

    “..chronic effects of fluoride involve alterations in the chemical activity of calcium by the fluoride ion. Natural calcium fluoride with low solubility and toxicity from ingestion is distinct from fully soluble toxic industrial fluorides …”

    “Industrial fluoride ingested from treated water enters saliva at levels too low to affect dental caries. Blood levels during lifelong consumption can harm heart, bone, brain, and even developing teeth enamel.

    The widespread policy known as water fluoridation is discussed in light of these findings. ….”

    2) http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html

    50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
    Dr. Paul Connett
    Professor of Chemistry
    St. Lawrence University, NY 13617
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    FYI – I have spent some hundreds of hours researching the decisions of the Ministry of Health and Watercare Services to use Waikato river water as a ‘raw’ source of drinking water supplies for the Auckland region.

    I respectfully suggest that you read the following document which I prepared for a meeting of the Auckland City Council Finance and Business Committee back in October 2002, so that you can understand why a number of persons, such as myself, do NOT trust either the Ministry of Health, or Watercare Services Ltd, when it comes to safeguarding public health and drinking water supplies.

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Waikato-Amended-ACC-Presentation-18-10-02.pdf

    FYI – as a 2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate, I do NOT support the fluoridation of public drinking water supplies.

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner.

    ………………………….
    ………………………….

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/?page_id=152

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REPLY RE: FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES FROM

    1) THE PRIME MINISTER’S ‘CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR’ PROFESSOR SIR PETER GLUCKMAN
    FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES OIA REPLY FROM PMCSA PETER GLUCKMAN 12 June 2013 response –

    ………………

    (The ‘Open Letter /OIA request and reply to the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall follows ….

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. publicwatchdog (2,819 comments) says:

    Of course, those with open minds who can think for themselves, and prefer to ‘seek truth from facts’ – may be interested in the EVIDENCE upon which those opposed to the fluoridation of public water supplies are relying?

    http://fluoridefree.org.nz/

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. publicwatchdog (2,819 comments) says:

    http://www.undergroundhealth.com/courts-quietly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/

    Wakefield attacked again

    Since the world has slowly become aware of the dangers of the MMR vaccine, parents around the globe have refused to get their children vaccinated. Earlier this year, the UK government singled out Dr. Wakefield and blamed him for the rising number of measles outbreaks in the country. In an April 2013 interview, he responded publicly.

    The website TheRefusers.com published both the video, as well as the written transcript, of Dr. Wakefield’s public response. Below are some excerpts of the doctor’s remarks:

    “The important thing to say is that back in 1996-1997 I was made aware of children developing autism, regressive autism, following exposure in many cases to the measles mumps rubella vaccine. Such was my concern about the safety of that vaccine that I went back and reviewed every safety study, every pre-licensing study of the MMR vaccine and other measles-containing vaccines before they were put into children and after. And I was appalled with the quality of that science. It really was totally below par and that has been reiterated by other authoritative sources since.

    All I could do as a parent was to say, ‘what would I do for my child?’ That was the only honest answer I could give. My position on that has not changed. So, what happened subsequently? At that time the single measles vaccines were available freely on the National Health Service. Otherwise, I would not have suggested that option. So parents, if they were legitimately concerned about the safety of MMR could go and get the single vaccines. Six months later, the British government unilaterally withdrew the importation license for the single vaccines, therefore depriving parents of having these on the NHS; depriving parents who had legitimate concerns about the safety of MMR from a choice; denying them the opportunity to protect their children in the way that they saw fit.

    And I was astonished by this and I said to Dr Elizabeth Miller of the Health Protection Agency, ‘why would you do this, if your principal concern is to protect children from serious infectious disease? Why would you remove an option from parents who are legitimately concerned about the safety of MMR?’ And her answer was extraordinary. She said to me, ‘if we allow parents the option of single vaccines, it would destroy our MMR program.’ In other words, her principal concern seemed to be full protection of the MMR program and not protection of children.”

    Dr. Wakefield himself reiterates the final conclusion of the courts in various countries, but censored by the world’s media outlets saying:

    “Now this question has been answered not by me, but by the courts, by the vaccine courts in Italy and in the United States of America where it appears that many children over the last thirty years have been awarded millions of dollars for the fact that they have been brain-damaged by MMR vaccine and other vaccines and that brain damage has led to autism. That is a fact.”

    – See more at: http://www.undergroundhealth.com/courts-quietly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/#sthash.KHz2ZeYv.dpuf

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. publicwatchdog (2,819 comments) says:

    http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/21/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/

    New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism – Again (MMR Vaccine Causes Autism)
    Posted by: TLB Staff

    Published June 21, 2013, filed under HEALTH

    autism-detection-voice[1]Controversial Doctor and Autism Media Channel Director proven right – MMR Vaccine Causes Autism & Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

    Two landmark events – a government concession in the US Vaccine Court, and a groundbreaking scientific paper – confirm that physician, scientist, and Autism Media Channel [AMC] Director, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and the parents were right all along.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. publicwatchdog (2,819 comments) says:

    Links between the World Health Organisation (WHO) and vaccine companies:

    FOLLOW THE DOLLAR?

    http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sage_h.html

    WHO ADVISER CONCEALS A DONATION OF MILLIONS FROM A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY

    Written by Louise Voller & Kristian Villesen for the Danish daily newspaper, “Information”

    10.12. 2009

    http://theflucase.com

    A Finnish member of the WHO board, an advisor on vaccines, has received 46 million crowns (6 million euros) for his research centre from the vaccine manufactures, GlaxoSmithKline. WHO promises transparency, but this conflict of interests is not available for the public to see at WHO’s homepage.

    Another ‘WHO’ vaccine advisor is withholding information concerning financial support from the pharmaceutical industry.

    Professor Juhani Eskola is the director of the Finnish research vaccine programme (THL) and a new member of the WHO group, ‘Strategic Advisory Group of Experts’ (SAGE), which gives advice to the WHO Director-General, Margaret Chan. ‘SAGE’ also recommend which vaccines – and how many – member countries should purchase for the pandemic.

    According to documents acquired through the Danish ‘Freedom of Information Act,’ Professor Juhani Eskola’s Finnish institute, THL, received almost 6.3 million Euro from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for research on vaccines during 2009.

    This amount of money qualifies GlaxoSmithKline as THL’s main source of income.

    GlaxoSmithKline produces the H1N1-vaccine ‘Pandemrix,’ which the Finnish government following recommendations from THL and WHO purchased for a national pandemic reserve stockpile.

    These facts bring Professor Juhani Eskola in line with several other ‘WHO ’experts who play a double role by having financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry – a double role which notably is not published by WHO.

    During November, the Danish daily, ‘Information’ has informed the public that several members of WHO’s expert group have also been secretly working for the pharmaceutical industry. Since revealing this information, a record of meetings and the conflict of interests of some of the experts have become accessible, but not all, including Juhani Eskola.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    In Finland, Professor Juhani Eskola is at the centre of a national conflict of interest. The Finnish Minister of Health has become involved in this case and has asked for transparency concerning the researcher’s financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. However, Professor Eskola doesn’t agree that there is a problem. He secures and protects his ‘WHO’ status, by offering a minor ‘consultative payment’ to the pharmaceutical company, ‘Novartis.’

    “Why haven’t you informed the public about a research grant of six million Euros from GlaxoSmithKline?” Professor Eskola comments, “It is a contract my chief and GSK have made, and I am not a part of the study, which receives the money.”

    Regarding ‘WHO’s declaration on conflicts of interest, ‘SAGE’ experts are obliged to inform on all kinds of financial research support, scholarships, payment for collaboration and sponsor support for the research unit, during the past three years.
    “We have 1,400 researchers at ‘THL’ and if I declare every economic transaction I am a involved in then it gets complicated.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    Kind regards

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    And yet not one word about the $400k paid to Wakefield for his fraudulent study.

    For someone sooooo concerned about who is paying who, that is one hell of an omission. Tantamount to an ADmission I would say.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    Looks like the Penny Bright troll has had a hit and run, I wonder if she adds anti immunisation and fluoride free to her ticket for her mayoral aspirations whether it will improve her dismal polling.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Speaking of hit and run, still no response on substantiating your assertion that “from a clinical perspective yes side effects of neurotoxicty certainly are easy to identify” in the context of the accumulation of the neurotoxin fluoride in the pineal gland?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    And yet not one word about the $400k paid to Wakefield for his fraudulent study.

    Why do you say that Wakefield’s study was fraudulent, Kimble?

    Here’s a cause of real fraud regarding a NZ fluoride study:

    http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_12-26-13/

    According to Colquhoun the Hastings deception was in three parts:

    1) After about two years the control city of Napier was dropped for bogus reasons.
    2) The reduction in tooth decay claimed was based on comparing tooth decay in Hastings at the beginning and the end of the trial (and not a comparison between tooth decay in Hastings and Napier).
    3) The method of diagnosing tooth decay was changed during the trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. stephieboy (3,399 comments) says:

    The final nail in the coffin for Andy Wakefield’s MMR vaccine causes Autism myth,

    http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/final-nail-coffin-vaccine-autism-myth/

    Naturally as we see in Public Watch dogs rave and spiel any thing to the contrary is conveniently explained away as a conspiracy by the medical establishment ,media and big Pharma.
    I invite reason and rationality through the door and read from my above link the findings from leading scientific journal Vaccine that through meta analysis and studies the links between MMR vaccine and autism is non existant.

    BTW still awaiting NZ studies that shows a discernible link between Fluroide alleged bad effects ( Cancers, lower I.Qs , neuro toxicity etc, etc ) comparing populations with no Fluride in municipal water supplies ( e.g. Tauranga ) and those with as in
    Auckland.?
    Any link would be pretty obvious. There is in fact none.
    Why.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    This entire debate, whether it be fluoride, or immunisation, is about telling people what to do, rather than allowing them to make their own decisions. It removes individual responsibility from the person for their own health care, and places it on the state. Once you start compulsory medication, even if it is only fluoride, you set a precedent for others to follow. That might be fine when you trust the government of the day, but what happens when you have a government who you don’t trust, or they listen to health professionals, being guided by big industry as to what is beneficial and what isn’t?

    The immunisation debate does effect other people, taking fluoride doesn’t. Therefore it is more complicated. However, each and every person has the ability to protect themselves by being immunized and putting themselves and their loved ones, out of harms way.

    Whilst I have no problem with the government educating the people on best practice — but each and everyone of us has a responsibility to ourselves and our children to be healthy, fit, and self-sufficient. When we pass some or all of that responsibility on to the state, and put the onus for our personal well-being onto others, before long we will have generations of people who expect the state to feed them when they can’t be bothered working, expect the state to find them homes to live in, and to pay them when they can’t be bothered working. We will have generations of people that don’t take personal responsibility for themselves – sound familiar?

    I accept the states role in educating on best practice. I have nothing against any person being immunised or taking fluoride – in fact, educating people using those examples is a very good place to start teaching what our society seems to have forgotten, the ability to care for themselves.

    We cannot on one side say people have individual responsibility and then on the other, compulsory medicate them, especially when there are other alternative methods for them to take that action themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Northshoredoc (24 comments) says:

    “We cannot on one side say people have individual responsibility and then on the other, compulsory medicate them, especially when there are other alternative methods for them to take that action themselves.

    Fair enough Judith I take your point in relation to fluoride but in relation to immunisation I don’t believe your position is tenable when we don’t enforce immunisation and when there is no other alternative method to protect oneself or society from outbreaks of the disease we vaccinate against.

    @UT I have no intention of engaging with you any further unlike Judith you have no intention or desire to debate at anything approaching a rational level.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. ChardonnayGuy (1,215 comments) says:

    Oh, and incidentally, everyone does realise Colin Craig is anti-fluoridation, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. notrotsky (85 comments) says:

    Wow just popped in for a look see and not surprised to see the anti vaccination loons and conspiracy theorists are out in force.

    Surprised to see that Penny Bright is more batshit crazy than I gave her credit for.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. stephieboy (3,399 comments) says:

    Judith , your argument based on “individual responsibility “is entirely fallacious and one the anti fluoride and anti immunization brigade like to target using the emotive medication of water supply argument.

    In the first instance immunization is not compulsory nor is fluoridation for that matter.Parents are not compelled to immunize their children and I know of a couple of parents who have decided against immunization. As for fluoridation people like the Fluoride net work ironically usurped the democratic function of Hamilton’s citizens and got the council to remove fluoride despite its citizens voting to in favour . This was reconfirmed in their last local body elections . Still the network are trying to challenge that . Where’s the lack of choice and compulsion. ? You and the network have the rights to campaign and change local council policies, the so called compulsion , through the ballot box

    Additionally there are a number of activities that are compulsory like e.g wearing seat belts , health and hygiene regulations for food outlets, compulsory chloride in our water supplies , health and safety regulations, car and vehicle safety etc, etc.. The way out of this is if you don’t like them is public persuasion and of course the ballot. To suggest other wise is highly misleading and a loaded and emotive argument that the anti immunization and fluoride brigade try to manipulate and use .

    Are you suggesting by your argument that Chloride is medication and that it should be removed due to its compulsory addition.??

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote