Health
Danyl Strype
Public
Seen by 428
We could take a number of leads from Dr Ben Goldacre for a Pirate health policy, particularly projects like BetterData, RandomizeMe, and PrescribingAnalytics:
http://www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre/
He has done a couple of excellent TED talks on the way bad science is used to justify dodgy health interventions:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe
Our health policy could also take a position on Pharmac, and the use of patents by pharmaceutical corporations to extract billions from governments, and in many cases make medicines unaffordable by larger portions of the world's population.
One of the first contentious health issues we've debated is water fluoridation.
Strypey did an Official Information Act request (using FYI.org.nz) about the chemicals used in water fluoridation, and who supplies them:
http://www.webcitation.org/6Owyo6zcM
Most of the Councils which responded said they used HFA (hydrofluorosilicic acid) sourced from the NZ of Orica, an Ozzie mining chemicals company. It turns out it’s true that their HFA is made from byproducts (they use the euphemism “co-products”) of superphosphate fertilizer production:
http://www.orica.co.nz/files/Fluoride/HFA_safety_data_sheet_shess-en-cds-020-000000015539.pdf
An employee of the Palmerston North City Council also included an ingredients list, also from Orica, which seems to indicate that the HFA they use has measurable amounts of barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic (1.1g mg/kg!)
http://webcitation.org/6OEm5FMTD
This 2013 article from the peer-review journal Environmental Science and Policy suggests that Sodium Fluoride (NaSF) is safer, although more costly, than Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFSA):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901113000087
"HFSA, a liquid, contains significant amounts of arsenic (As). HFSA and NaSF have been shown to leach lead (Pb) from water delivery plumbing, while NaF has been shown not to do so."
Poll Created Tue 29 Apr 2014 9:22PM
Do we find it acceptible to have toxic substances deliberately added to the common water supply? Closed Tue 29 Apr 2014 9:23PM
This is one of two decisions to be made to reflect the current state of the discussion.
There is reason to believe there might be toxic substances such as barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic added to the water supply in some areas of New Zealand. This decision is not about us believing this actually happen or not. This is so far only about the question if we would care if this was the case.
In case we can agree on that, then it would make sense to investigate further if the problem really exists and what the scope of the problem might be.
This decision is also not about the substance Fluoride, which will be subject of a separate decision as well.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 0% | 0 | |
| Abstain | 0% | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 0% | 0 | ||
| Block | 0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 19 |
|
0 of 19 people have participated (0%)
Poll Created Tue 29 Apr 2014 9:26PM
If there were toxic substances deliberatley added to the common water supply: would we want to care? Closed Tue 29 Apr 2014 9:52PM
This is one of two decisions to be made to reflect the current state of the discussion.
There is reason to believe there might be toxic substances such as barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic added to the water supply in some areas of New Zealand. This decision is not about us believing this actually happen or not. This is so far only about the question if we would care if this was the case.
In case we can agree on that, then it would make sense to investigate further if the problem really exists and what the scope of the problem might be.
This decision is also not about the substance Fluoride, which will be subject of a separate decision as well.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 0% | 0 | |
| Abstain | 0% | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 0% | 0 | ||
| Block | 0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 19 |
|
0 of 19 people have participated (0%)
Hubat McJuhes Tue 29 Apr 2014 9:54PM
OK, sorry for the confusion. But second thoughts suggest that we should go from the broader to the more detailed decision. Hence the Fluoride aspect should be the first to agree upon, only if we agree on supporting Fluoride programmes in principle do we have to bother about the actual products to support or dismiss.
Poll Created Tue 29 Apr 2014 9:59PM
Do we support fluoridation programms in principle? Closed Fri 2 May 2014 9:04PM
There is a broad support (>66%) for fluoridation programms in principle
This is the first proposal of a series to find out what aspects we really need to discuss.
The current discussion suggests that we seem to agree to accept fluoridation of our water supply in principle, but there are concerns of the quality of the actual products used. The latter is to be decided upon in following decisions.
This one is about adding fluoride to the common water supply, without taking any by-products into account.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 62.5% | 5 |
|
| Abstain | 25.0% | 2 |
|
|
| Disagree | 12.5% | 1 |
|
|
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 12 |
|
8 of 20 people have participated (40%)
Danyl Strype
Wed 30 Apr 2014 2:16AM
I think it's unethical to perform any health intervention on people without their informed consent.
Andrew McPherson
Wed 30 Apr 2014 7:41AM
It is ethical to prevent public bad health by adding trace elements
Andrew McPherson
Wed 30 Apr 2014 7:44AM
It is ethical to prevent public bad health by adding trace elements and @strypey Dr. Ben Goldacre is a world renowned shrill against fluoridation.
Hubat McJuhes
Wed 30 Apr 2014 7:47AM
I was unaware that fluoride is toxic and bio-accumulating in itself.
David Peterson
Wed 30 Apr 2014 11:03AM
So so so so far outside our scope....
Hubat McJuhes · Tue 29 Apr 2014 9:14PM
OK, let's summarise: @andrewmcpherson is in favour of fluoridationprograms as he is looking at the beneficial aspects of fluoride and fluoride alone.
Nobody has so far been arguing against that.
Everyone else is worried about barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic being deliberately added to the water supply.
Nobody has so far been arguing in favour of barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic being added to the water supply.
The open question is: are there really toxic substances in one or more products used? And if so: are there non-toxic alternatives? And if so: should we take the stance to advocate for using the better product and ruling the problematic product out?
It would be great if we could start two decisions at once, one per each of the first two aspects. But we can't. So I suggest that we first decide on barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic; and then decide on fluoride.
We can then proceed discussing the matter productively with everyone knowing where we stand and talk about.