The guy in the video above says that Waldbott was doing double-blind clinical trials.

However, reading a Waldbott article, it seems his methodology (in this case, at least) is not double blind.

From 'The Preskeletal Phase of Chronic Fluoride Intoxication', G.L Waldbott. (www.fluoridation.com/waldbot.htm)

Place the patient on a fluoride free water supply until the symptoms have sub-sided and then, unbeknown to the patient, add 2.2 parts per million of sodium fluoride to the water." This concentration is equivalent to 1 ppm fluoride in water, the optimal concentration recommended for fluoridation of drinking water.

This is not a double-blind trial. This is known as a single-blind experiment, where only the patient is unaware of whether they are drinking fluoridated water. In a double-blind experiment, both the researcher and the patient would be unaware of whether the water is fluoridated.

The other problem I have with this article is that Waldbott relies too much on anecdotal evidence. He tells stories about some of his patients who he believed were intolerant to fluoride in water. Then he tries to link that to some data from workers that work in the cryolite industry (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryolite). This link doesn't quite hold up for me, as the exposure to fluoride experienced by the cryolite workers (they were probably breathing it, drinking it, sleeping in it, etc) would have been completely different to drinking fluoride at 1ppm.

Anyway, this particular bit of research does not convince me that Waldbott is behaving objectively - he could very well be a person on a mission to discredit water fluoridisation. It's not that I don't believe him, it's just that he doesn't make a very good case.

I agree with everything DL said.

It is apparent even from the video that the fluoride test was NOT double blind because the person performing the test knew who got what and worse still, had an interest in achieving a negative result for fluoride.

That doesn't prove the results wrong but it does cast serious doubt on them, particularly when the differences between the two subject groups would have been very minor and open to biased interpretation.
Had the results of the test been along the lines of, all the fluoride group dropped dead and all the non fuoride group were fine, then the test would not be so open to biased interpretation and therefore more acceptable, even though the tests were not double blind.
They should NEVER have been described as 'double blind' experimnets if they were not because it bestows on them an importance which they simply did NOT have.

Worse still, it detracts from the acceptance of the argument they are trying to make, even if the argument is correct.

Regarding the statement that the fluoride compound used is 'industrial waste' and toxic, etc, and has been shown to cause problems in laboratory animals, that may well be the case,... BUT (and it's a big but) much of what we eat and which is essential to life can be described the same way.

I could pick many substances which sound toxic (and are toxic, alcohol, selenium, for instance,) but lets just consider one which everyone knows.

Sodium Chloride. A combination of 2 highly toxic elements which most doctors would advise you keep well away from.
It's just salt, sprinkle it on your fish and chips to make them taste better.
And yet any laboratory test will show that it kills bacteria, sucks the water out of living cells, and if administered to laboratory animals then it can induce major illness.
But it's a matter how much of it you get isn't it?
If you get none at all you get sick and die.
If you get too much you get sick and die.
It's exactly the same for many chemicals and compounds. In small doses they are beneficial and in large doses they can be lethal.

Sooooo, looking at fluoride, when I was young,, (a long time ago) there was no fluoride in the water. Nearly everyone had rotten teeth,(literally). They just plain rotted out of your head. Kids hated going to the dentist because it almost always meant having big holes drilled into your teeth and filled up with an amalgum of really toxic metals, like mercury. And that is an element which is toxic at any dose level.
By the time you were 35 to 40 it was not uncommon to have had ALL YOUR TEETH PULLED OUT because they were such a mess.
Some time in the late '60s or early '70s I think it was (here in WA) the water supply was fluoridated and within a few years we had an excess of dentists with nothing to do because the job they were good at, drilling holes in teeth or pulling them out, was in decline.
I know we still have dentists today but a lot of their work is now straightening teeth or capping them or making them whiter than white, jobs that were just not bothered with 50 years ago because you didn't keep them long enough to make it worthwhile.

There are areas in the world which have naturally fluoridated water. It just comes out of the ground that way. I think this is how the effect was discovered. It was noticed that people in that area had great teeth without any dental care. I wonder how those people would respond if you said,"hey, we've found you've got fluoride in your water and someone says it might be bad for you so we're going to take it out. Just one small negative side effect though. Your teeth will rot out, painfully and you will probably lose them all by the time you are 40."
"Oh yes please! Do that tomorrow! " I don't think so.

Don't take it that I don't think we should continually test everything we eat, drink or use for negative side effects. I think we should.
But everything has to be kept in perspective.
And so far, all things considered, I think the net effect of fluoride is still very much in the positive.

but Mrs Marsh told us flouroguard was good, gooood...I saw the chalk test.

evlPanda said...

Oh my god I just found out that water contains Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen is HIGHLY FLAMMABLE! In fact the explosion of the Hindenburg airship was an infamous case of hydrogen combustion! Oxygen is related to trioxygen which is VERY DAMAGING TO LUNG TISSUE! Please, tell all your friends about the dangers of water immediately!!!

!!!!!!! (!!!)

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story...

From here:
www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1052864.htm

The Hindenberg disaster was not caused by the hydrogen.

evlPanda said...

Oh my god I just found out that water contains Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen is HIGHLY FLAMMABLE! In fact the explosion of the Hindenburg airship was an infamous case of hydrogen combustion! Oxygen is related to trioxygen which is VERY DAMAGING TO LUNG TISSUE! Please, tell all your friends about the dangers of water immediately!!!

!!!!!!! (!!!)

Well we've been trying to warn everyone on this very site of the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide.
But does anyone pay the slightest bit of notice.?? NO!
But just wait til the court cases start and then people will sit up and take notice. YEAH!!

nebbian said...

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story...

From here:
www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1052864.htm

The Hindenberg disaster was not caused by the hydrogen.

Actually nebs, this article is fairly factual.
I think the only bit that is wrong is the assertion that the hydrogen all went upwards and didnt contribute to the fire. Once the bladders were ruptured by the fire the hydrogen certainly would have burnt. What is true is that the flames from the burning hydrogen would have all risen rapidly upwards and probably didnt contribute much to the burn injuries because the passengers were all very low down. (Although radiant energy from burning that much hydrogen must have had some bearing ion the matter.)
Also, re. the assertion that hydrogen burns with an almost invisible flame.
It does if the mix is in perfect proportions but it can also burn with a very yellow flame. I have burnt it very recently and the flame is yellow.
Another scource of the flames was the diesel fuel on board, which was the cause of the black smoke and many of the burn injuries.
(burning hydrogen doesnt make smoke under any conditions because there is no carbon in it. Thats why it would be good for car fuel.)

But would I fly in an airship filled with hydrogen?
Only after a complete labotomy.

NotWal said...

Well am not unresponsive to criticism pweedas. You have alerted me to the necessity to keep it clear and simple.
Yoo r rite. I am a smartarse n I mustn't use big word.

and this is a family site so the word is 'cleverbottom'.
or perhaps 'intelligent sphincter'
or maybe 'highIQ anus'.
maybe 'upper 5 percentile ring'.
(I'll stop now.)

blindingly obvious..ITS THE DENTISTS !!! They are evil sadistic flouride touting conspiritors. They wont show their face on television, they dress like nazi scientists, they implant "things" in our teeth !!! I've heard that great advances in pain management should mean pain free dentistry. No freaking way !! They must be inflicting pain on purpose! Part of the whole mind control thing no doubt. One day they will transmit the trigger word, activate the "do da's" in our teeth, and everybody who has been to the dentist will submit to their evil will !!!....So BRUSH people, brush for your lives !!!! AAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrhhhh(rinse)

NotWal said...

Gee notwal you really told us there...
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears or see's it ..did it really happen?

Stribo You're a sad case, probably a Buddhist or a veggi or possibly even a kiter. But I wont hold that against you. There is room for disagreement isn't there, so I will disagree.

Those stupid sayings are Buddhist koans aren't they? Aren't they intended to help people with meditation by giving them an insoluble puzzle to contemplate when they are supposed to be meditating? I mean really, the sound of one hand clapping is a very small clapping noise. Its as simple as that. Its also futile because it cant be heard in the general din of applause. Perhaps that why nobody knows what it sounds like. If a tree falls in the woods does it fall on Shrodinger's cat? Well not if its nowhere about. Again simple. Simple utterences from the mouths of "gurus" for the uncritical masses who can't see the emporer's invisible robes but don't want to go to jail.

Notwal ..Did daddy used to beat you when you failed at sports and in turn you went to school and beat up on nerds and fat kids??
I can accept your narrow minded ignorant outlook on all things spiritual.But to call me a kiter....... Thats below the belt

NotWal said...

Aren't they intended to help people with meditation by giving them an insoluble puzzle to contemplate when they are supposed to be meditating?

WTF is an insoluble puzzle?

pweedas said...

stribo said...

NotWal said...

Gee notwal you really told us there...
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears or see's it ..did it really happen?

Stribo You're a sad case, probably a Buddhist or a veggi or possibly even a kiter. But I wont hold that against you. There is room for disagreement isn't there, so I will disagree.

Those stupid sayings are Buddhist koans aren't they? Aren't they intended to help people with meditation by giving them an insoluble puzzle to contemplate when they are supposed to be meditating? I mean really, the sound of one hand clapping is a very small clapping noise. Its as simple as that. Its also futile because it cant be heard in the general din of applause. Perhaps that why nobody knows what it sounds like. If a tree falls in the woods does it fall on Shrodinger's cat? Well not if its nowhere about. Again simple. Simple utterences from the mouths of "gurus" for the uncritical masses who can't see the emporer's invisible robes but don't want to go to jail.

Notwal ..Did daddy used to beat you when you failed at sports and in turn you went to school and beat up on nerds and fat kids??
I can accept your narrow minded ignorant outlook on all things spiritual.But to call me a kiter....... Thats below the belt

Careful NotWal.
Even on this side of the screen I can feel him quivering with righteous indignation.

Just rebaiting my hook pweedas.Last one got fleeced...ohh.. nibble nibble...nibble

Do you get a prize for 1000 posts NotWal?

Just in case you've been missing out on the best page in the universe (I really mean that) Maddox sums up 9/11 conspiracies, as only he can:

www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

evlPanda said...

NotWal said...

Aren't they intended to help people with meditation by giving them an insoluble puzzle to contemplate when they are supposed to be meditating?

WTF is an insoluble puzzle?

As much as I hate to Panda to bating Dr Evil I will go to the dictionary just for you....

in·sol·u·ble /#618;n#712;s#594;ly#601;b#601;l/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sol-yuh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. incapable of being dissolved: insoluble salts.
2. incapable of being solved or explained: an insoluble problem.

puz·zle /#712;p#652;z#601;l/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puhz-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -zled, -zling.
–noun
1. a toy, problem, or other contrivance designed to amuse by presenting difficulties to be solved by ingenuity or patient effort.
2. something puzzling; a puzzling question, matter, or person.
3. a puzzled or perplexed condition; bewilderment.
4. a crossword puzzle: Did you do the puzzle in the newspaper today?
5. a jigsaw puzzle.
–verb (used with object)
6. to put (someone) at a loss; mystify; confuse; baffle: Her attitude puzzles me.
7. to frustrate or confound, as the understanding; perplex: The problem puzzled him for weeks.
8. to exercise (oneself, one's brain, etc.) over some problem or matter.
9. Archaic. to make intricate or complicated.
–verb (used without object)
10. to be perplexed or confused.
11. to ponder or study over some perplexing problem or matter.

So there you have the literal meanings. There's a lot to choose from I know. I meant 2 in the first and 11 in the second.

harrytesties said...

noticed today that the latest edition of 'new dawn' magazine again has a story on the fact and fallacies of flouride.......

Hey Hairy !
I can't find 'New Dawn" magazine at my newsagent.
They have "New Idea' but that seemed to be full of froth and bubble.
Is 'New Dawn' published by the same people?