Fluoridation critic still unhappy after ad complaint rejected

I'm wondering why this made it as a news story at all. The tl;dr; for it would read "Psudeoscience promoter whines about having complaint rejected due to facts."

Looking at the actual article though, it would appear that McNair has resorted to conspiracy as an explanation. There was one complaint by an anti-fluoride supporter that was upheld and looking at it I can understand why. The advertiser did an appalling job of defending their position. It basically boiled down to "I don't understand why the complaint is happening, I pointed Evans at PubMed and Cochrane. The evidence is all there. Go look for yourself." Past experience tells me that the ASA really like it when you do that legwork for them. Provide the citations and you're position is way more likely to be able to make your case.

Moving on though, McNair claims that "By its own admission (although the ASA is theoretically an independent body) it cannot rule against another Government authority if they are broadly considered to be ‘experts' in the field and the ASA has been publicly warned to ‘tread carefully' in this area."

I would be very interested in seeing the citation for this. There are two contradictory positions here. They either cannot rule against another Government authority if they are broadly considered to be ‘experts' in the field or they need to "tread carefully" when dealing with complaints against another Government authority. In the context of this complaint, they cannot do both. If the former is true then the latter is not needed. The latter is a fair position to take though.

If the former statement about the ASA not being allowed to rule against other Govt bodies that are seen as 'experts' in their fields is indeed correct then that is cause for concern. If anyone can provide evidence for this I would love to see it.

McNair goes on to claim that because Evans complaint was upheld and hers was not it must have been due to the complaint being against a Govt department. That's a conspiracy. Could someone get a tinfoil hat in the post for McNair please?

I wonder if McNair ever stopped to consider that the facts do not support her position, that the ASA did tread carefully, and that after deliberation of the correspondence presented it was found that McNair was just plain wrong?

Trackback URL for this post:

http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/trackback/13103