Another example of a paper not showing what’s claimed for it:
Let’s look at Bataineh & Nusier’s 2006 report on the effects of sodium fluoride (NaF) on behaviour and reproduction in male rats. In the very first sentence of the abstract, we see that the experimental animals received either 100ppm or 300ppm NaF for 12 weeks, while the controls received normal drinking water (1.2ppm NaF). So the experimental rats were receiving a dose up to 2 orders of magnitude higher than what’s normally found in fluoridated town supply!
Unsurprisingly the control rats continued to do what rats normally do. In other words, the dose makes the poison – this paper does nothing to bolster claims that fluoridated municipal water is harmful to health.
But point this out and what do we get? Cries of ‘more excuses’ and/or an immediate switch of attention to the next thing that appears to show the evils of fluoridation. It seems that the Gish Gallop is a technique not restricted to creationists.

 

Sources:
Bataineh, H.N., Nusier, M.K. (2006) Impact of NaF on aggression, sexual behaviour and fertility in male rats. Fluoride 39(4): 293-301

http://www.donotlink.com/dem1