Debunked: The Great Culling - Paul Wittenberger and Chris Maple

You guys here at metabunk.org debunk nothing in my opinion. Perhaps you are paid disinformation agents, or are you all so chemically neutered you can't see what is what anymore? Is it hard to believe there are evil people, powerful people, who are control freaks, that desire nothing but commiting evil and controlling everything down to if you use salt or have a 20 oz slurpee? Especially about chemtrails. I am an experienced scientist and I didn't have to have anyone tell me that what is going on up in our skies are not contrails. The most simple way to debunk the debunkers it to provide them with facts - which are usually ignored at any rate. Here's one for you: Contrails cannot turn on and off, as in a step function. You know, that Heavisides guy. Totally on, totally, off, etc. Debunk that. I am a defense scientist and engineer. I work in aviation and missile defense engineering every day. I have advanced degrees. I'm telling you that they are doing this, and whether or not the intention is to soft-kill, I cannot say, but it is sickening people who have allergies and genetic susceptabilites. The lab test of air and soil are indisputably beyond anything natural. And working for the government you learn quickly that your health is the last thing they care about. They remove asbestos without moving people out. They hire contractors that clearly are doing substandard work using plastic sheets used for painting and taping it up with paint tape. They only wear those stupid little 3M masks, and don't wear suits. They stick fans in the windows. I'm not very confident in the quality of their vacuum seal, blowing out asbestos into the couryards with the fans in the windows. It' a joke. Meanwhile, all us high IQ guys, their weapons designers and experts are sitting and breathing it in. Mold is rampant on the 70-100 year old buildings. They just remediatied stachybotrys several months ago. The kind of mold that definitely kills. It has killed. Then the take the building down. I got transferred out of a toxic mold building on base. Unfortunately I can have a nice culture of stachybotrys in a few days in a cup of coffee left out in my new office. The people are still in that building I was in before, except a few that on doctor's requests were moved as I was. They walk around with red eyes, coughs, and complain how they feel like they have the flu or say "I've never been so sick as this year, or really since I moved into this building". It almost killed me.
 
The most simple way to debunk the debunkers it to provide them with facts - which are usually ignored at any rate. Here's one for you: Contrails cannot turn on and off, as in a step function. You know, that Heavisides guy. Totally on, totally, off, etc. Debunk that. I am a defense scientist and engineer. I work in aviation and missile defense engineering every day. I have advanced degrees.

Sure, the on/off is due to variations in humidity. Humidity varies as much as clouds vary. Since clouds vary down to the level that the trails vary, then there's no discrepancy. See:

http://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/

 
Last edited:
It totally is like a step function. The air is either ice-supersaturated (contrail persists) or it is not (contrail dissipates).
Yes, it is that simple.
 
I am an experienced scientist and I didn't have to have anyone tell me that what is going on up in our skies are not contrails.
You're a scientist (me too) - but not an atmospheric physicist (me neither). There's a lot of scientific literature on persistent contrails that you can look into. Once you gain an understanding of what conditions cause contrails to persist, and the variability of these conditions in the sky, then observations such as "turning on and off" are easily understood.
 
I'll try to be kind, considering that the poster seems to be emotionally involved. We often get people coming and saying they are scientists, they have advanced degrees, etc. This is a claim. I'm not saying it is false, but really it is an appeal to authority. However, the authority of an unregistered anonymous person really isn't all that impressive. We haven't seen any science from this person, only this claim:

Contrails cannot turn on and off, as in a step function.

And he began with a very impolite set of insults.

Insults, empty appeals to authority, and unsupported claims are not the way of the scientist. I hope you can return and do much better in the future.
 
The most simple way to debunk the debunkers it to provide them with facts - which are usually ignored at any rate. Here's one for you: Contrails cannot turn on and off, as in a step function.

As a scientist and an engineer yuo should therefore understand het need to back up statement of facts with evidence - so why not do so?

For example this video with a contrail "stepping" at about 43 seconds tends to support the claim you are wrong...

 
This is a great movie and I highly suggest it to anybody. Its all based on fact.

I'm sure you can find some facts in it. But it's also based on a lot of falsehoods. One huge one is the claim the contrails normally fade away, so any long lasting trail must be a "chemtrail".

That's demonstrably false. And as it's the foundation of a third of the film, then that makes the film rather suspect.
 
The last time I visited the East Coast, I took off from an airport on the first plane out. I took many photos from the plane and the sky was literally sprayed in a evenly pattern across the sky. I'm 100% convinced that these are chemtrails.
 
The last time I visited the East Coast, I took off from an airport on the first plane out. I took many photos from the plane and the sky was literally sprayed in a evenly pattern across the sky. I'm 100% convinced that these are chemtrails.

Does it not make you stop to think though, when you find out that the film had it wrong about persistent trails?

(And there's no such thing as "the first plane out", there's aways several thousand commercial planes in the air over the US).
 
Not at this time in the morning. This was the first plane departing from the airport and there were no other planes out at that point.
 
IMO the prime motive for chemtrails is so that some people can be a big fish - even if it is only in a little pond of conspiracy theorists.
 
IMO the prime motive for chemtrails is so that some people can be a big fish - even if it is only in a little pond of conspiracy theorists.
I pretty much know your opinion . . . I was asking for TheCorruptOnes' opinion . . . Many individuals don't care about the so called leaders of the CT group . . .
 
Are you all serious? [...] I bet everyone on this site believes everything they see on TV and read in the so called news. I have a very good friend that almost died from fluoride poisoning, and to this day she still has a hard thing holding objects. Knowing pilots, and people that make jet engines, that knows how the fuel burns, I can say without a doubt the people on this site loves closing their eyes to what is right in front of their faces. [...]
 
Are you all serious? [...] I bet everyone on this site believes everything they see on TV and read in the so called news. I have a very good friend that almost died from fluoride poisoning, and to this day she still has a hard thing holding objects. Knowing pilots, and people that make jet engines, that knows how the fuel burns, I can say without a doubt the people on this site loves closing their eyes to what is right in front of their faces. [...]

Hello Unregistered, welcome and thanks for posting.

Reading between the lines there I suspect you have found something that one of the "everyone on this site" has posted that is incorrect. If that is so, could you register, then open a new topic with "Debunked: {whatever the person said}", quote what was said, then post your debunking of it. Then we can all discuss it.

For instance, what is it that is right in front of our faces that you think we can't see or that we are choosing to ignore?

Looking forward to what you have to say, and thanks again for posting. :)
 
It seems like a goodly portion of the film is on the Fluoride Conspiracy Theory, which has been around since the 1950s, with very little effect.


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




355px-Unholy_three.jpg

I seriously suggest you watch the first 30 mins of the documentary that explains that the fluoride added today is much different than that from the 50's.
I also recommend you read this document from a leading enviromental scientist and expert on fluoride and try and debunk that. Should be fun.
Here is the link:http://www.enviro.ie/Feb2013.pdf
 
So 1950's fluoride is difference from 2010's fluoride?

Fluoride is an element - it is no different now from what is was a million years ago, or will be a milliong years from now./

That alone should be enough to tell you the film is rubbish.

Thereport yuo link to is under the auspices of hte WHO and European commission - usually conspiracy theorists rail against those as being part of the NWO apparatus, so it is interesting you use it!

However it raises many good issues - especially ethical, which have never been denied. But much of it is nonsense - it is not actually a good investigation of links at all - it says the RoI has higher rates of some diseased compared to Northern Ireland, for example, and the RoI is fluoridated while NI is not - but it makes no attempt to examine any other causes - it pretty much just assumes that it is all fluorides fault.

It is a good read for brining together the evidence against fluoride - and for highlighting how weak it actually is - there are a lot of studies used in it, but all hte ones I read can only come up with circumstantial links - "...might..", "...could.." and the like.

And it makes no comparison of naturally fluoridated water supplies and how they differ, if at all, from artificually or non-fluoridated water.

It is verbose and voluminous........but seems to make no actual attempt at all to be a balanced look at the issue.
 
As you are well aware the substance that is added to the water supply is not naturally occuring fluoride. The fluoride added in the 50's was a bi-product of the aluminum industry and labelled sodium fluoride, The product added to the water supply nowadays is hydrofluosilicic acid(extremely toxic) passed off as fluoride.....there's NOTHING natural about it.
Therefore yes the product is different to that which was added in the 50's. Hydrofluosilicic acid is completely man made and highly dangerous. So the skull and crossbones on the packaging mean nothing to you when they SUIT UP and add it to the water supply?
The salient question posed, and not thus far refuted, is what does the EU know that the US doesn't about fluoridation? I live in Northern Ireland which has unfluoridated water thank goodness as opposed to my neighbours in the southern Ireland who unfortunately have.
Declan Waugh is a bona fide environmental scientist. Many of the people shown in The Great Culling are also men of science, like Declan Waugh, who have spent a considerable amount of personal time,money and effort to expose this fallacy of fluoridation. They seem more qualified than you and i will ever be on fluoridation
This subject goes beyond the derogatory term you guys love to use.....namely conspiracy theory. As i have said before there is INSURMOUNTABLE scientific evidence that fluoridation is extermely harmful. Time has born this out with the significant increase in neurological and cancer related diseases which directly correlate to fluoridation. Remember those wonderful tobacco industry scientist who swore blind that smoking didn't cause cancer.....for years they got away with this whilst the so called conspiracy theorists where derided as usual. There are many other examples down the years i could cite......fluoridation is another i'm afraid.
Btw why not contact Declan Waugh on Facebook and challenge him directly.....he doesn't subscribe to conspiracies and you seem to allude.....just scientific and quantifiable facts. Here is another link for you to consider:http://cof-cof.ca/1979/12/moe-quebec/

You have nowhere near debunked, as you guys love to put it, the question that water fluoridation is extremely harmful.
Ask yourself.....WHY add it to the water in the first place? We don't need it so why use it? Could money be involved i wonder?
The Great Culling:Water is an excellent medium to help expose this dangerous practice. Btw i'm not here to change your view.....i find that many of you guys are a closed shop and cling to your own paradigm even in the face of considerable evidence on this one subject.
I also can't answer for the chemtrail or food aspect of the presentation as i haven't seen either of them. I do however know that my government, and yours, have a penchant for telling lies time and time again over MANY subjects. But hey...... you know this already.

Bryan Belshaw

So 1950's fluoride is difference from 2010's fluoride?

Fluoride is an element - it is no different now from what is was a million years ago, or will be a milliong years from now./

That alone should be enough to tell you the film is rubbish.

Thereport yuo link to is under the auspices of hte WHO and European commission - usually conspiracy theorists rail against those as being part of the NWO apparatus, so it is interesting you use it!

However it raises many good issues - especially ethical, which have never been denied. But much of it is nonsense - it is not actually a good investigation of links at all - it says the RoI has higher rates of some diseased compared to Northern Ireland, for example, and the RoI is fluoridated while NI is not - but it makes no attempt to examine any other causes - it pretty much just assumes that it is all fluorides fault.

It is a good read for brining together the evidence against fluoride - and for highlighting how weak it actually is - there are a lot of studies used in it, but all hte ones I read can only come up with circumstantial links - "...might..", "...could.." and the like.

And it makes no comparison of naturally fluoridated water supplies and how they differ, if at all, from artificually or non-fluoridated water.

It is verbose and voluminous........but seems to make no actual attempt at all to be a balanced look at the issue.
 
I have read lots of what some call evidence, but it all involves higher doses than folks get. Let's see GOOD comparisons with those on what we get and those that don't. Comparing folks in rural Idaho with folks in Pasadena TX won't cut it
 
I have read lots of what some call evidence, but it all involves higher doses than folks get. Let's see GOOD comparisons with those on what we get and those that don't. Comparing folks in rural Idaho with folks in Pasadena TX won't cut it


Again the comparisons you seek are here in this doc:http://www.enviro.ie/Feb2013.pdf
Just imagine good old China sell their toxic waste to the US who then dump it in the water supply.
Even they know not to fluoridate their own water supply. This is a slow erosion of the bodies natural defence systems that manifests itself in a myriad of diseases that are on the increase especially over the last 20 yrs.
Go to your local water treatment works and ask to see the packaging which contains a hazard warning that is as plain as day.
 
Water treatment folks also suit up when handling chlorine gas added to municipal water. It is so highly toxic that as a child I witnessed trees killed downwind of a leaking gas bottle. Do you oppose putting chlorine in water?
 
Water treatment folks also suit up when handling chlorine gas added to municipal water. It is so highly toxic that as a child I witnessed trees killed downwind of a leaking gas bottle. Do you oppose putting chlorine in water?

I'm overjoyed they suit up whilst adding chlorine gas....good safe practice. However i'm sure you are aware that when chlorine gas is introduced to the water supply, in order to remove various pathogens, it converts to hypochlorite ions and hypochlorous ions which is non-toxic to us..... so i don't oppose it.
Btw chlorination may be the main choice for decontamination but it doesn't have to be used. There are other effective methods.

I also see the way you guys operate on this site......you circle in like vultures and choose a soundbite to home in on. Much akin to divide and conquer.
Sadly thought the facts remain.....water fluoridation is unsafe and to date toxologically untested.
Keep drinking the fluoridated water if it keeps you happy and then wonder why certain neurological disorders and certain cancer related illnesses are spiralling.
The food we eat and water we drink play the major role in this rise.......but again you know this already.

Bryan Belshaw

Something for you to browse:http://ffwireland.blogspot.ie/2013/03/letter-to-taoiseach-prime-minister-of.html
 
I have read lots of what some call evidence, but it all involves higher doses than folks get. Let's see GOOD comparisons with those on what we get and those that don't. Comparing folks in rural Idaho with folks in Pasadena TX won't cut it

Here are more GOOD comparisons with my country (N.Ireland) and the rest of the EU and our neighbours (ROI)....

For example, mortality in the Republic of Ireland from diabetes is 470% higher than non fluoridated northern Ireland, mortality from endocrine and metabolic disorders 350% higher, rheumatoid arthritis 277% higher and diseases of the musculoskeletal system 228% higher than Northern Ireland. The incidence of early onset dementia is 450% higher, the incidence of Sudden Death Syndrome 300% higher while the incidence of a wide range of cancers are significantly higher in the Republic of Ireland compared to Northern Ireland and the EU.

The Republic of Ireland has the highest incidence of hormone related cancers such as ovarian and prostate cancers in the EU. Overall cancer incidence is 38% higher than the UK and according to the World Health Organisation cancer incidence in the Republic of Ireland is 85% above the corresponding incidence rate for European region and 43% above the EU incidence rate.

The incidence rates for chronic lymphoblastic leukaemia are 53.5% higher for males and 53.1% higher for females in the RoI compared to Northern Ireland. Remarkably males incidence rates increased in Republic of Ireland by 2.8% per year during 1994-2004, while in Northern Ireland rates were static.

Ireland has the highest death rate from respiratory disease in Western Europe with death rates at almost twice the EU average, Ireland also has the highest mortality rates form diseases of the blood including severe immunodeficiency. Ireland has the highest rates of obesity in EU and incidence of Sudden infant death syndrome.

Bryan Belshaw

Another one to watch:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=70wuP5V8Pwg#!
 
So 1950's fluoride is difference from 2010's fluoride?

Fluoride is an element - it is no different now from what is was a million years ago, or will be a milliong years from now./

That alone should be enough to tell you the film is rubbish.

Thereport yuo link to is under the auspices of hte WHO and European commission - usually conspiracy theorists rail against those as being part of the NWO apparatus, so it is interesting you use it!

However it raises many good issues - especially ethical, which have never been denied. But much of it is nonsense - it is not actually a good investigation of links at all - it says the RoI has higher rates of some diseased compared to Northern Ireland, for example, and the RoI is fluoridated while NI is not - but it makes no attempt to examine any other causes - it pretty much just assumes that it is all fluorides fault.

It is a good read for brining together the evidence against fluoride - and for highlighting how weak it actually is - there are a lot of studies used in it, but all hte ones I read can only come up with circumstantial links - "...might..", "...could.." and the like.

And it makes no comparison of naturally fluoridated water supplies and how they differ, if at all, from artificually or non-fluoridated water.


It is verbose and voluminous........but seems to make no actual attempt at all to be a balanced look at the issue.


Something else for you to watch:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=70wuP5V8Pwg#!

Bryan
 
So 1950's fluoride is difference from 2010's fluoride?

Fluoride is an element - it is no different now from what is was a million years ago, or will be a milliong years from now./

That alone should be enough to tell you the film is rubbish.

Thereport yuo link to is under the auspices of hte WHO and European commission - usually conspiracy theorists rail against those as being part of the NWO apparatus, so it is interesting you use it!

However it raises many good issues - especially ethical, which have never been denied. But much of it is nonsense - it is not actually a good investigation of links at all - it says the RoI has higher rates of some diseased compared to Northern Ireland, for example, and the RoI is fluoridated while NI is not - but it makes no attempt to examine any other causes - it pretty much just assumes that it is all fluorides fault.

It is a good read for brining together the evidence against fluoride - and for highlighting how weak it actually is - there are a lot of studies used in it, but all hte ones I read can only come up with circumstantial links - "...might..", "...could.." and the like.

And it makes no comparison of naturally fluoridated water supplies and how they differ, if at all, from artificually or non-fluoridated water.

It is verbose and voluminous........but seems to make no actual attempt at all to be a balanced look at the issue.


Btw sorry for replying again but i can't help but laugh at the above criticism......verbose and voluminous.
You want evidence.....you get evidence...... but it's not good enough or there's to much of it. Can you understand how rediculous that sounds?
A closed attitude perhaps?
Read the peer review references contained in the document if the document itself is TOO much for you.
One thing is for sure....Mr. Waugh had done his homework.

Bryan
 
Bryan Belshaw,

the listing of desease statistics of Ireland does not constitute evidence for your claim.

You would have to show that there are no other factors responsible for the increased values beside fluoridization.

A proper study would involve at least two test groups from the same area, one that is subjected to fluoridization and one that is not.
 
http://www.dentist.ie/_fileupload/J...58 No_ 3 - June July - FlourideSupplement.pdf

The York Systematic Review,3 one of the major systematic reviews of
recent years, explains the issue very well on its website. Major
governmental and independent reviews in a number of countries in
recent years have all concluded that the evidence to date does not
indicate that community water fluoridation causes any ill health effects
Content from External Source
It seems that the Republic of Ireland disagrees with you.


I can think of a lot of things that would make a difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland, including the availability of health care and screening tests.

I would also like to see where those numbers came from, as they are, they are useless.
 
Bryan Belshaw,

the listing of desease statistics of Ireland does not constitute evidence for your claim.

You would have tctors responsible for the increased values beside fluoridization.

A proper study would involve at least two test groups from the same area, one that is subjected to fluoridization and one that is not.

Sorry my friend that is pure rot. The two groups are from the same Island with a divide north and south. The increase in neuro disorders alone constitute a correlation.
I just wonder what would constitute evidence for my claim? This is a pretty closed shop after all but some of you folk have claimed to have debunked fluoridation. .......you still haven't from where im standing. How many did it take to die of lung cancer before the almighty tobacco industry was brought to heel? I bet some of you guys were still asking for proof?
The facts speak for themselves. ...most of the EU must know something you guys dont. Money talks.

Bryan Belshaw

Btw sorry Mick I think I'll pass on the invite.
 
http://www.dentist.ie/_fileupload/J...58 No_ 3 - June July - FlourideSupplement.pdf

The York Systematic Review,3 one of the major systematic reviews of
recent years, explains the issue very well on its website. Major
governmental and independent reviews in a number of countries in
recefluoridation vecertainlyncluded that the evidence to date does not
indicate that community water fluoridation causes any ill health effects
Content from External Source
It seems that the Republic of Ireland disagrees with you.


I can think of a lot of things that would make a difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland, including the availability of health care and screening tests.

I would also like to see where those numbers came from, as they are, they are useless.

http://www.enviro.ie/Feb2013.pdf Again I have provided this link. The source of the statistics lie therein and are up to date I think you'll find. Also as you arrogantly suggest the ROI disagrees with me.....well I suppose there is some truth to that but the picture is much bigger than that......the rest of the EU disagrees with them it seems and are vastly better informed also.
Btw I work as a health professional for the Belfast Trust (nhs) and have nearly 20yrs experience. Most of which have been spent caring for terminally ill patients. Our healthcare provision does not differ much in standard practice from our neighbours in the south and in fact we treat a considerable amount of clients from ROI. Yes there are many factors to disease......flurodation is certainly one of them.

Consider this....countries who add flurosilicic acid are GREATLY in the minority. Many MANY major scientists and experts disagree with the practice not only on health grounds but ethically as well. So the so called conspiracy theorists are not amongst the minority this time...lol.
Bryan
 
http://www.dentist.ie/_fileupload/J...58 No_ 3 - June July - FlourideSupplement.pdf

The York Systematic Review,3 one of the major systematic reviews of
recent years, explains the issue very well on its website. Major
governmental and independent reviews in a number of countries in
recent years have all concluded that the evidence to date does not
indicate that community water fluoridation causes any ill health effects
Content from External Source
It seems that the Republic of Ireland disagrees with you.


I can think of a lot of things that would make a difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland, including the availability of health care and screening tests.

I would also like to see where those numbers came from, as they are, they are useless.


Sorry...I think you meant to say the government down south disagrees with me as more and more wake up to the dangers of fluoridation down there. It actually made headline news last night in Dublin.....go figure.
I suppose the main point is that the government seldom does what is good for it's citizens.....certainly never more true in this case.

Bryan
 
Here are more GOOD comparisons with my country (N.Ireland) and the rest of the EU and our neighbours (ROI)....

For example, mortality in the Republic of Ireland from diabetes is 470% higher than non fluoridated northern Ireland, mortality from endocrine and metabolic disorders 350% higher, rheumatoid arthritis 277% higher and diseases of the musculoskeletal system 228% higher than Northern Ireland. The incidence of early onset dementia is 450% higher, the incidence of Sudden Death Syndrome 300% higher while the incidence of a wide range of cancers are significantly higher in the Republic of Ireland compared to Northern Ireland and the EU.

The Republic of Ireland has the highest incidence of hormone related cancers such as ovarian and prostate cancers in the EU. Overall cancer incidence is 38% higher than the UK and according to the World Health Organisation cancer incidence in the Republic of Ireland is 85% above the corresponding incidence rate for European region and 43% above the EU incidence rate.

The incidence rates for chronic lymphoblastic leukaemia are 53.5% higher for males and 53.1% higher for females in the RoI compared to Northern Ireland. Remarkably males incidence rates increased in Republic of Ireland by 2.8% per year during 1994-2004, while in Northern Ireland rates were static.

Ireland has the highest death rate from respiratory disease in Western Europe with death rates at almost twice the EU average, Ireland also has the highest mortality rates form diseases of the blood including severe immunodeficiency. Ireland has the highest rates of obesity in EU and incidence of Sudden infant death syndrome.

Bryan Belshaw

Another one to watch:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=70wuP5V8Pwg#!

I appears that your posted information comes from this pdf http://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/nicr/FileStore/PDF/Filetoupload,176741,en.pdf

If you go all the way down to the discussion section you will read the following:

External Source
The lack of understanding of the causes of leukaemia is a major hindrance to the development of prevention strategies for this disease although the link with ionising radiation warrants precautions being taken with regard to the presence of ionising radiation in the environment. These are already in place in Ireland and studies have been undertaken with regard to the possible link between cancers linked with ionising radiation and possible radioactivity from the Irish Sea. None have demonstrated a definite link and high incidence of leukaemia in Ireland thus remains unexplained


Nothing said about fluoridation of the water.
 
You want evidence.....you get evidence...... but it's not good enough or there's to much of it. Can you understand how rediculous that sounds?
A closed attitude perhaps?

The evidence that is gotten still needs to be examined for it's quality - a great deal of poor evidence is still not good evidence.

Read the peer review references contained in the document if the document itself is TOO much for you.

Presumably what the author considers the "best" part of those documents to support his position is the numerous quotes and extracts contained in his own work. Suggesting I read over 500 references in full as a means of getting around the problems of reading the shorter document is an odd suggestion!

And having looked though those extracts I conclude that all those peer reviewed documents actually fail to establish the solid links you seem to think they do - hence my commenting on their use of conditional language in the conclusions quoted.

One thing is for sure....Mr. Waugh had done his homework.

As has been noted by others - perhaps not.

The large number of references, and the lack of actual concrete findings reminds me of my undergraduate essays where I put as much into bibliographies and references as possible in order to bolster my mark!
 
A couple of the comments were interesting

AnonymousMarch 26, 2013 at 2:26 AM

Could the differences between Northern Ireland and the ROI be explained by the fact that they have the NHS (free medical care) and we have the HSE (not free)? Surely having access to a free world class medical service as opposed to our expensive inefficient one who explain a lot of the difference in the health stats.
Reply
Replies

MatthewMarch 26, 2013 at 7:55 AM

It's possible, but bear in mind there are a huge number of differences between Northern Ireland and the Republic: Geographic, genetic and social. The different healthcare systems is a possible explanation, certainly, but there are any number of factors that could explain differences in disease prevalence.

To immediately attribute any differences to fluoridation, as Waugh does, looks to me like knowing the conclusion you want first and then fitting your data to it afterwards - something which is anathema in science.
Content from External Source
 
Back
Top