Talk:George Waldbott

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Book Quote

Yobol, The link to that scathing book review is included in the references, and has been since the beginning. I haven't touched it, as it is an opposing viewpoint on Waldbott's scientific opinion. However, taking the final sentence from that book review to apply to the man in his biography seems excessive and out of place. I was willing to agree to minimizing his expert opinion on the impact of water fluoridation on those with allergies with qualifying language, despite his standing as literally the man who wrote the textbook on allergies used in medical schools and winner of many awards. That's collaborative and fitting. However, book reviews are places for personal opinion and as such they can get rather nasty. This wiki article isn't the place for taking that sentence out of context. Please undo. Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book review is in a highly reputable British venue, New Scientist. Biographies in Wikipedia are not shrines to the person. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seabreezes1, I suggest you change the section heading title to avoid any charges of making forbidden legal threats. They can get you blocked very quickly. Negative statements are not the same has slander or libel. We are allowed to include properly sourced negative content. Interestingly, even if it was libelous, reposting of libelous content on the internet is protected free speech in the USA, but the originator could still be sued. We don't try to post actual libel or slander, but if we did, and it was provably libelous, we'd also document that it was part of a controversy. We follow what RS say, including the bad. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, Thank you. Yobol, Smokefoot,The book reviewer lists several items he believes proves his strongly worded condemnation of man and book, such as:

- Claiming the assumption that all fluoride storage is harmful, citing 4-5 mg per day. Well, in large amount it is, as it results in skeletal fluorosis, and we’re still arguing about safe individual dosage limits, which per wiki are now considered to be between 2-4 mg.

- Claiming their is no substantiation for excessive tea drinking causing mottling in some British towns. Again, per wiki and other sources, excessive tea drinking is considered a fluoride toxicity risk that effects tooth appearance.

- Compares coffee stains on teeth with teeth mottling. Apples and oranges.

- Claims Waldbott is the only one speaking out on this. Waldbott was a leader, but there were others such as Reubun Feltman who along with Dr. Kosel published a 14 year PHS sponsored, controlled study on pregnant women and children which found that 1% of all subjects had allergic symptoms and had to be removed from the study. Dr. Leo Spira of England was also outspoken in the early years, as was Dr. Philip Sutton of Australia. Kaj Roholm, before his death, also warned that the American water fluoridation program would prompt illnesses. Waldbott did fluoride studies with other doctors, including those in Europe where there were symposiums on this topic. He wasn’t alone, he even had two co-authors on the book. But even today, some of us will have our personal doctors and occasional dentist who will say yes, they believe fluoride in the water is bad for the health of at least some of their patients, but also say they won’t speak publicly because it will “lose them patients.” Dismissing someone for an unpopular opinion in itself is not a valid critique of the opinion. However that type of behavior does have a dampening effect on open dialogue and debate.

Consequently, I don’t believe including this personal and dated book reviewer opinion in the body of the wiki article is warranted. Please continue any further discussion on this page, rather than reverting edits. Thank you. Seabreezes1 (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the interest of balance, I have included a reference to the review in the last sentence of last paragraph. Seabreezes1 (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One idea: lets find a biography-obit by some august well respected group - not the Mom-and-Pop Fluoride Alert types. Something like NYT, Annals of Allergy, or American Men and Women of Science. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with need more mainstream views of Waldbott. I note that the most recent change, removing the text of the quote, and charging a book review as a "professional attack" and also giving undue weight to fringe views about water fluoridation will not fly. Yobol (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: It seems that given Waldbott's standing in his field and his significant accolades, publications, and awards prior to this involvement with fluoride should be "mainstream" attestment. Notice that Yobol and Smokefoot continue to engage in an edit war rather than discussing here. I suggest that that behavior is more "fringe" and a "type" than anything I've written. Also note that they did not respond to my critique on this page of book reviewer's rationale for his statement. I think that quote is inappropriate, but would welcome someone with a more neutral POV to edit.

FWIW: I do NOT get my info from FAN, and I groan whenever I see them as a source and keep digging. Neither do I use anything from the journal Fluoride, which I don't read, simply because it is unusable as a source, so don't throw those stones at me. However, there are some items, like the 1988 issue of the Chemical & Engineering News Special Report on fluoridation or Dr. Thiessen's 2011 Comments to the EPA, which are only or most easily accessible on f-opponent sites - that doesn't discredit the items as they originated in credible sources. Also for the record, BOTH proponents and opponents of fluoride attract extremists. I've noted that among those guarding the "purity" of fluoride related sites, there are those who prefer denigration and aggression to scientific discussion. Not everyone in either camp is a zealot or a scientist. I happen to be an analyst who until recently believed fluoridation was a good thing, hence my current interest in the topic. Signing off Seabreezes1 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainstream" scientists hold fringe positions all the time (see Kary Mullis and Peter Duesberg for example). The position that water fluoridation is bad for health is a WP:FRINGE position (due to the overwhelming support for it in the general medical community) no matter the credentials of the individual person opposing it. We also report what reliable source say (for example New Scientist); if they are incorrect, and the book in question is highly respected in the medical community, you should be able to find sources (say book reviews in journal articles) praising the book. Yobol (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the citations (1,3, 9, 10) supporting this article are from Fluoride. As has been mentioned many times, Fluoride journal is so not-mainstream that Pubmed wont even index it. So Wallbott did fringe science for most of his career. There is nothing evil with that behavior, but it seems that we have to live with that characterization within Wikipedia. Linus Pauling also went fringy. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I did use the obituary published in Fluoride, but I'm sure it's the same one in major newspapers. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find an online version of his obituary. There are shorter versions confirming the same credentials in the bios of his book (p421 of Dilemma) and on the UMass Amherst Libary of his papers. That said, an obituary is not the same thing as a scientific study. I could replace if you prefer, but again, this is only an obituary and the online reference seems preferable. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waldbott was born in 1898 and started doing fluoride research in 1955 (age 57) as the result of seeing patients in his practice, some of whom made the connection on their own that the water was making them ill because they felt better when visiting family out of town or got cramps after drinking that first glass of water in the morning. That is neither "most of his career" or fringe science. He just began by observing and reporting his clinical experiences. The same thing that got him accolades when he did it in respect to anaphylactic shock and COPD. He had already founded allergy clinics in Detroit hospitals. Fluoride, sadly, became his second career only because of the resistance to the minority reports about illness. He never got into whether it was good for teeth. He only testified that it was making some people ill and that the PHS hadn't done due diligence in safety. 2006 NRC just said the same thing about lack of due diligence per safety. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]