Public Meeting - Water Fluoridation

[WTF]

google it, either spelling would suffice?

 

 

 

I've listened to Dr Kishore at length on a number of occasions and I've never had any problems understanding him. Maybe you need to clear your ears out.

 

 

perhaps he could do it for me? before filling them with propaganda.

[saveourwater]

Authorised bump in case people missed the info during the thread merger last night.

 

The previous page contains a post from me about who the British Fluoridation Society are, and their role in the effort to fluoridate the Manx water supply.

 

We have organised another public meeting on the subject of water fluoridation.

 

Details as follows:-

 

PUBLIC MEETING - WATER FLUORIDATION

 

TUESDAY NOVEMBER 20TH 2007 - STARTS 7PM

 

LOCH PROM METHODIST CHURCH, DOUGLAS

 

FREE ENTRY - ALL ARE WELCOME

 

The case for fluoridation will be presented by Dr Kishore of the IOM DHSS Public Health Directorate and Professor Lennon, Chairman of the British Fluoridation Society.

 

To present the against fluoridation our group have nominated Dr Paul Connett PHD, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University and Executive Director of Fluoride Action Network.

 

There will be ample time for questions from the audience after the initial presentations by the above speakers.

[saveourwater]

Not a new film but now available for online viewing through Google Video.

 

Dr Hardy Limeback an ex-proponent of fluoridation speaks out against the practice.

 

Dr Limeback is former President of the Canadian Association of Dental Research, Chairman of Preventive Dentistry, Toronto, Expert Advisor to the Canadian Dental Association.

 

Google Video Film Link

 

The interviewer is Dr Paul Connett, our expert speaker at next Tuesday's Public Meeting.

[saveourwater]

Polite reminder.

 

Meeting is tomorrow night.

[nipper]

It was said by a politician in Tynwald today that those against flouridation were the vocal minority.

 

Apparently a headcount at the meeting this evening had 3 people for flouridation - Dr Parameswaran Kishore the Director of Public Health, Dr Emerson and Professor Michael Lennon who presented the case for flouridation.

 

The remainder - well over 120...........were unanimously against.

 

There can be little doubt that the overwhelming majority - vocal or otherwise - are against our Government flouridating our water. The Government need to be aware of this.

 

Politicians present: David Anderson, Eddie Teare (Minister for Health), Quintin Gill. Manx Radio recorded it and I would imagine they will be broadcasting the meeting at some time.

 

This matter effects us all - don't let someone else make up your mind, particularly this Government.

 

Me, I'll just sit on the fence a while longer.

[mojomonkey]

It was said by a politician in Tynwald today that those against flouridation were the vocal minority.

 

Apparently a headcount at the meeting this evening had 3 people for flouridation - Dr Parameswaran Kishore the Director of Public Health, Dr Emerson and Professor Michael Lennon who presented the case for flouridation.

 

The remainder - well over 120...........were unanimously against.

 

There can be little doubt that the overwhelming majority - vocal or otherwise - are against our Government flouridating our water. The Government need to be aware of this.

 

Politicians present: David Anderson, Eddie Teare (Minister for Health), Quintin Gill. Manx Radio recorded it and I would imagine they will be broadcasting the meeting at some time.

 

This matter effects us all - don't let someone else make up your mind, particularly this Government.

 

Me, I'll just sit on the fence a while longer.

 

I've not really got a view on the flouridation thing but I think you will always find people opposing things very vocal, those that support or don't care tend to be apathetic.

[nipper]

I agree there, but I doubt those opposing in this instance are in the minority.

 

Regarding apathy, I have no problem with that, but the apathy vote should go with the status quo. Which in this case is no flouride. Or whatever.

[saveourwater]

I would like to thank everyone who turned up to the meetings, both in Tynwald during lunchtime yesterday and the evening public debate.

 

In the evening public meeting the front 5 rows were reserved seating, for Commissioners, Parish Captains, Members of Tynwald and the like and were nearly full at some 50 places.

 

There were 'at least' 4 dentists and 5 doctors in the audience in addition to at least another 80 members of the public and as Nipper has said a vote on the issue as the DHSS team were leaving the meeting (before it had finished) was as follows: -

 

Apparently a headcount at the meeting this evening had 3 people for flouridation - Dr Parameswaran Kishore the Director of Public Health, Dr Emerson and Professor Michael Lennon who presented the case for flouridation.

 

The remainder - well over 120...........were unanimously against.

 

This was not a vocal minority, this was many members of invited local government, doctors, dentists and members of the public.

 

The entire event was filmed and was also recorded by Manx Radio.

 

Thanks again for everyone who turned up on a cold, damp November Tuesday night, you made it all worthwhile.

[Lost Login]

The remainder - well over 120...........were unanimously against.

 

There can be little doubt that the overwhelming majority - vocal or otherwise - are against our Government flouridating our water. The Government need to be aware of this.

 

I think there can be plenty of doubt. I have no idea if the majority on the Island is for or against Fluoridation. Or if they are ambivalent on the issue.

 

I am aware there there is a vocal number who are anti fluoridation and that 120 turned up to a meeting yesterday organised by the anti fluoridation society. To extrapolate that and say that the majority on the Island is against it is a bit presumptious. I am sure if there had been similar meetings in the Island against the relaxing of the homosexuality laws in the past hosted by the opponents of the relaxation of the laws then there may have been similar outcomes ot in fact in respect of any meeting hosted by a pressure group. That is not to dismiss the fact that there might be a majority against just to suggest that a meeting held by any pressure group is not necessarily an indicator of public opinion across the Island.

 

Either way I hope that whatever the outcome it is the Island that is eventually left to make the decision. I am getting uneasy that this debate is if not being hijacked by outside parties then it is at the least it is attracting a considerable amount of interest from some parties outside the Island who are strongly trying to influence the local debate. At the meeting last night I understand there were vocal opponents of Fluoridation from across in the audience, equally on any Mandate phone in when the topic is discussed there always seem to be vocal opponents from across ringing up. Sorry guys but this is nothing to do with you, it is purely a decision for the local population, so go and fight your battle elsewhere. At present these people seem to be fighting the cause in the IoM not from the goodness of their heart but so that they can use the IoM as an example when fighting their cause in the UK. I have to admit that I do not like the feeling that I am being used as a pawn in somebodies elses game.

[ai_Droid]

Well said.

[ballaughbiker]

Mojo, you have a good point.

 

I have taken an interest in fluoridation since I was a student in the 70s when this was being debated just as fiercely in Bristol. I have been to a handful of meetings since on this and other matters where the common link is opposition from a small but vociferous minority. They usually rely on various techniques including:

 

1) Targetting people's natural insecurity about something they do not fully understand.

2) Establishing a link, however tenuous, to a threat to heath. If you can establish a link to cancer (which you usually can) all the better. If you can frighten the shit of of joe public, and you will with the big C, you are almost there, as people will naturally say "Oh we'd better not then, just in case. Better safe than sorry!"

3) Establishing some link with environmental damage which again is usually possible as man by his very existence will have some impact.

4) Discrediting the need for whatever is being discussed or actually saying it is unnecessary.

5) Trying to prove it is going to cost an absolute fortune which we can't afford.

6) Try to prove someone has a vested interest in a course of action and that is the real reason why it is being promoted.

7) Relying on apathy of most of us resulting in an overwhelming majority anti representation at public meetings.

8) Relying on spurious evidence from unheard of professionals with 'qualifications' most of us (me included) do not understand.

 

I am an anti when it comes to water fluoridation solely on the grounds of a right to choose. This right along with free speech (well 99.99% of free speech anyway) are rights that I think should be protected. However I have seen the antis mercilessly exploited 1-8 above and I have to say they have done their job well. What I am against though is use of so called evidence to support the cause. Proof does not have to play a part. Say something enough times as loudly as you can and most people will start to believe it 'cos "there's no smoke without fire".

 

Scientific research has evolved over the centuries to follow a certain pattern if its results are to be respected. All disciplines however have their extreme thinkers who are trying to make a name for themselves and produce work that cannot withstand scrutiny from the rest of the scientific community(I call them nutty professors). This work can however be used to brainwash ordinary people like us who cannot argue back as we have no detailed knowledge.

 

Unfortunately I could not attend the public meeting and look forward to hearing it on the media. However the arguments put forward by the antis on MF mostly rely on evidence from nutty professors or MHKs with no more knowledge about this than you or I. Listening to an ex-probation officer on the radio t'other morning speaking as though he knew better than the emergency services and using 3) above was certainly a revelation. You can say anything. Talk is cheap. I could say phone masts cause baldness (as I have before, jokingly). I live near a mast and I'm bald, what further proof do you want? Get some baldness specialist with a PhD in UHF propagation from an obscure university in the US and you can prove it, can't you? Get 120 people who agree with you and shout loud enough an its nearly fact, except of course it obviously isn't.

 

Finally, I do not think the pro-fluoridationists have done their job very well at all. They don't seem to have used any data/statistics from respected sources and there is no doubt the meeting last night was won by the antis. However just ask yourself one question. Why on earth would real professionals with real qualifications want to do something to harm us? I await your conspiracy theories with interest.

[ballaughbiker]

Lostlogin - good point although it is unlikely there would be any local experts on this subject.

[nipper]

Good post from Lost Login and I have to agree

 

and it may well be that some are being used as pawns in someone else's game, however in this particular matter I would much prefer to be a well informed pawn than a nodding donkey, a blind one. Or maybe a mushroom, I'm not sure.

 

 

Ballaughbiker's post is one I would usually applaud in general but perhaps not in this case.

 

I understand that at the meeting last night there were many, many well presented statistics from both sides of the argument. No one mentioned cancer.

 

This is an extremely important issue and the people of the Isle of Man need to be able to show they can make their own mind up.

 

I wonder if they are capable of doing that?

[Lost Login]

Lostlogin - good point although it is unlikely there would be any local experts on this subject.

 

Sorry to make myself clear it is not really the "experts" that I have an issue with who are on the platform etc presenting a case for or against. There position is clearly defined and available to all to see and they have been invited by local residents who have an interest in the issue.

 

The issue I have is with those that are living in the UK with no other interest in the IoM apart from commenting on Fluoridation and then ringing up Mannin Line or being in the audience heckling, asking questions etc etc and giving the impression that they are local residents concerned about the issues as applicable to the IoM went in fact they could not give a monkey about the IoM except that they think if they can stop it here they can stop it in parts of the UK. If it was not on the radar in the UK then I am sure that many of these "activists" would not otherwise be paying any attention to the IoM

[saveourwater]

Some of the chatter on this thread today is sadly detracting from the central fact that in a well advertised and fairly moderated public debate Dr. Paul Connett, Executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, soundly defeated Professor Michael Lennon, chairman of the mighty British Fluoridation Society. The case was convincingly made that the Isle of Man should not fluoridate its water and thereby keep in step with the vast majority of European nations, which have rejected fluoridation. In short, last night was a resounding victory for science and common sense.

 

Last night’s public meeting began with a challenge to Dr Paul Emerson last April to debate this issue on the Island. He said he would debate but subsequently invited Prof Michael Lennon to present his case.

 

We selected Prof Paul Connett to present the case against.

 

Any claims that the meeting was stacked in favour of the anti-fluoridation position is pure nonsense. It is true that we rented the hall. However, the DHSS promoted the meeting, which included advertisements in all 3 local newspapers in the week before the meeting and in addition it received considerable media attention. We had little control over who attended. However, we did invite all the MHKs, all the Commissioners (we reserved two seats per group) all Parish Captains, all GPs, all dentists and all hygienists.

 

We were happy to see that at least 5 doctors and 5 dentists were present and most of the reserved seating for invited guests above was full.

 

Both sides were offered equal time to present their case (up to 45 minutes each) and the meeting was impartially chaired by Miss Norma Cowell, a retired head teacher, who was recommended to us by the Methodist Church where the event was held.

 

Such debates between leading spokespersons on both sides of this issue are very rare in this long running controversy. Proponents usually decline to debate the matter. Dr Paul Connett has tried for 11 years to have a debate with a leading proponent of fluoridation without success until last night. So persuading Dr. Lennon to debate Dr. Connett last night was a world first for the Isle of Man. Not surprisingly therefore it attracted a number of distinguished visitors form the UK, which included Dr. Jennifer Luke, a prominent fluoride researcher who first demonstrated the accumulation of fluoride in the human pineal gland, Walter Graham who led the fight to keep fluoridation out of Northern Ireland, Liz Vaughan the chairman of the UK Councils against Fluoridation and Doug Cross an independent researcher who has served on the UK Committee on Toxicology, and has spent several years investigating the “legality” of fluoridation.

 

In turn the proponents fielded Dr. Kishore, Director of Public Health, Dr. Paul Emerson and other members of the DHSS.

 

Professor Lennon announced to the audience, shortly after 9 pm, and much to the dismay of both the moderator and the audience, that he had had enough (he said that he was up at 8 am and was looking forward to eating some sea food) and that he was leaving. As they he was leaving someone asked the audience how many people were in favour of fluoridating the Isle of Man. Only the retreating proponents (which included the DHSS entourage and the Health Minister) raised their hands. We counted three hands raised. When asked how many opposed fluoridation the remaining 100 plus hands shot up, which included all the invited guests above.

 

Just how many people came with their minds already made up we cannot say, but we think it is highly likely that many were persuaded by Dr. Connett’s science based arguments.

 

Hopefully further discussion on this meeting will focus on the substance of the arguments presented by both sides, particularly the evidence of harm presented in the 507 page review of Fluoride in Water by the US National Research Council. This report took a truly balanced panel three and half years to complete and the evidence presented should help to end fluoridation worldwide. However, it is largely being ignored by proponents of fluoridation like Professor Lennon (who claimed he had a copy in his case) and health authorities in fluoridating countries.