Related Articles

One Comment

  1. 1

    Dan Germouse

    Describing the blatant marketing in The Conversation article as “analysis” is laughable.
    Mike Morgan: “To do a study like this and say there’s an association without taking into account other factors, and then say, we should reduce the levels of fluoride, well it beggars belief that they should be able to say that in a reputable publication.” I have asked people like him over and over and over again to cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that the forced-fluoridation experiment is anything but harmful and useless, and they can never come up with anything. The marketing exercises, thinly disguised as research, which are supposed to prove benefit do not take into account other factors. They do not take into account total sugar consumption, frequency of sugar consumption, or status of nutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and vitamin K, for example. They are not randomised, do not measure individual fluoride exposure, and rely on unblinded, subjective, very imprecise measurement which is highly prone to systematic error.

    Edited to remove inappropriate personal statements in line with Croakey’s policy: “While vigorous debate is welcome, please keep the commentary civil. We will not hesitate to spike/edit abusive comments”. For more information please see http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/the-croakey-disclaimer/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2020 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey