|
|
About Us Contact Us Useful Links Translation Site Map |
|
Infodocs Opinion Polls Pictures Propaganda Unethical Con. |
|
News Centre Press Release |
|
Political Register |
|
Dental Data Forums/Reviews Papers Statements |
|
Aus F News Copy List |
|
HREX |
|
Opinion Polls Introduction How much does an opinion poll influence the population at large? If it is a poll question addresses a humorous or trivial issue, it will be taken with a pinch of salt - it will be treated as a joke. The accuracy of the question will not be too relevant because of it's nature. But what happens when the poll question addresses a serious issue? The pro-fluoridation lobby certainly have a reputation for putting a great deal of faith in fluoridation poll questions, even to the point where they (regularly) rig such polls to get the answer they desire. Methods of poll-rigging are not always clear. Sometimes loaded questions are asked where it is deliberately implied that fluoridated water could reduce tooth decay. Other poll results are distorted by the propaganda that precedes the crucial question. This can be actually contained within an overall questionnaire where the question of whether to add fluoride to water follows some less than subtle suggestions that fluoridation is an effective way to fight tooth decay. On other occasions, single poll questions on fluoride follow can be preceded by vile and libellous public campaigns by the poll sponsor, and aimed at those who oppose the measure. Something you may not want Trying to persuade people they want something without actually getting their permission to impose it upon them is not so straightforward. For example, if you are laying out hard cash for a product then the chances are you would want to see a contract first. You would also normally look for some kind of guarantee or indemnity. The pro-fluoride lobby were in no position to hand out guarantees about the safety and efficacy of fluoridated water so therefore an alternative tactic had to be employed. Enter the spectre of the 'conveniently structured' (or even rigged) opinion poll. The first thing you should realise is that an opinion poll is not a contract. You do not 'sign on the dotted line', so to speak. Consequently, when the person interviewed (the respondent) states they are in favour of a proposition, it is non-binding. In other words, it is a subjective rather than objective approval of a particular contention. However, and despite these facts, the pro-fluoride lobby has used, and continues to use, opinion polls as evidence of the general public's approval of fluoridation. This type of activity is deplorable and indefensible. We must also consider that the sponsors of pro-fluoridation opinion polls use hypothesis to obtain support. By structuring questions that induced a positive response, it is possible to get 'approval' for fluoridation - if only by proxy. Think about it, it's easy to see how even the most moderate confidence trickster could get you to say yes to a proposition, a proposition which you may say no to in an environment where you have more of the facts at your disposal. There are a number of ways you can achieve these goals. The first is the 'hit-and-run' tactic of a 'street poll'. By approaching people on the street you can catch them off-guard. The second is by visiting people in their own homes. In this scenario, the opinion poll respondent has more time to consider their reply. However, in this this type of situation, 'conditioning' is sometimes required to obtain the desired result. In either situation, you need an organisation that appears to be independent but which is more than capable of meeting their contractor's needs.
Referenda This is why this type of question is favoured above a properly held referendum where the respondent is allowed to make an informed choice. Referenda show that on the majority of occasions, people tend to reject the idea of water fluoridation. In 1985, during the passage of the Water Fluoridation Bill, former Health Minister Ken Clarke stated that he was not in favour of a referendum to determine public opinion on fluoridation. He alluded to the fact that because the population in general did not understand the intricacies of fluoridation that it was pointless holding a referenda. What he really implied was that we should not be trusted with a vote, despite it being an important aspect of democracy. It's a bit like an incumbent but very unpopular Government prior to a General Election saying that there will be no Election because most of the electorate aren't wise enough to cast a vote in their favour. The final example which highlights the pro-fluoride lobby's dislike of referenda is a story which appeared in the Fluoride Report in April 1994. In 1990, a health officer of the state of Florida gave a blueprint for introducing fluoridation to an official of St Petersburg. He was told one of the most important tactics to consider is:
Perhaps the advice should have been to avoid a referenda when it cannot be rigged in your favour! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TRANSLATION | EDUCATION | NEWS | POLITICAL | SCIENCE | AFN | HREX | ABOUT [fluoride.org.uk] | CONTACT | LINKS | SITE MAP |