.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, September 21, 2018

Story image for fluoride from Rockhampton Morning Bulletin

Mather: We don't want mass medication in our water

Rockhampton Morning Bulletin-9 hours ago
MEDICAL and dental associations can push as hard as they like for fluoride to be readded to local water supplies, but if Livingstone councillor Glenda Mather ...

Unable to access without payment

Australia - 'fluoride free' Pete's Paleo palace

Inside Pete's Paleo palace! My Kitchen Rules judge Evans builds a solar-powered seaside mansion in Sydney - and it's completely 'fluoride free'

He's the My Kitchen Rules judge known for advocating the controversial Paleo diet.
And it seems Pete Evans' stunning new mansion is appropriately Paleo-friendly.
The 45-year-old chef has built an ultra-modern property in Sydney's Malabar, which he proudly claims is completely 'fluoride free'.....................

Letters: Happy to move back to Stockton away from Hartlepool's water

I NOTICE Hartlepool is always mentioned when people start talking about fluoride (Echo, Sept 7). Let me tell you a couple of tales about the local water there.
In 1985 I moved to Hartlepool from Stockton, and stayed for seven years, but mostly was unable to drink the water as it made me bilious and sick from the very beginning.

I went to my GP, and after a few tests he quizzed me about where I had lived before. He came to the conclusion it was the fluoride in Hartlepool’s water. his advice was that if my sickness continued, I should collect water from my parents in Stockton, which I did, and I felt much better within a few days.

Shortly after that I noticed a lump in my left side rib cage, close to a previous injury, and went to my doctor who suggested I needed an X-ray.

When he got the results, my doctor confirmed it was the previous break to my rib and the fluoride in the water had created a callous, which is still with me today.

I am now happy to say I live back in Stockton.

Has anyone else noticed similar things?

J Hunton, Stockton-on-Tees

F.A.N. Newsletter

In an effort to forestall the bill pushing for mandatory fluoridation in New Zealand’sparliament, FAN NZ organized a visit of three experts to provide the latest evidence at Otago University that fluoride was neurotoxic and had the potential to lower the intelligence of children even at the doses commonly experienced in fluoridated communities.
Why Otago University? It’s located in Dunedin on NZ’s South Island. It hosts the only dental school in the country and for many years has been the hotbed of fluoridation promotion. But it also has a famous medical school and many relevant science departments. Surely, if we could convince some of the prestigious professors who teach at this school - as well as the students - that fluoride was neurotoxic with the potentialto reduce the mental abilities of future generations that they would sound the alarm bell and bring the MPs and the new Labor government to its senses. The government is led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who has just had a baby.
The motto of Otago University is “Sapere Aude” (“Dare to be wise”). The former vice-chancellor of the university is Sir David Skegg, now President of the Royal Society of NZ, who was half the prestigious team (other half: Sir Peter Gluckman, former chief scientific advisor to the Prime minister) of the2014 report that whitewashed fluoridation’s dangers. Despite gross errors, this report has been widely used by the media and the Ministry of Health in their support of this parliamentary bill.
The three experts who visited NZwere
• Vyvyan Howard from Northern Ireland, an infant and fetal pathologist;
• Declan Waugh, an environmental scientist from the Republic of Ireland – who has spent the last 7 years on an intensive study of fluoride’s toxicity.
• and myself, Paul Connett, a retired professor of chemistry and co-author of the book The Case Against Fluoride.
Half page ads were run in major newspapers in both Wellington and Dunedin, promoting our visit and announcing our talks (Dunedin, Sept 4 and Wellington, Sept 6).
The evening arrived. As we approached 7 pm, nearly 300 people began to fill the seats.
You can see videotapes of our three presentations:

Many of you have seen and heard me many times so I recommend that you start with Declan’s presentation, which I found absolutely riveting, and then watch Vyvyan’s commentary on fluoride and the thyroid gland and then mine.
The disappointing news – not one professor from the University came to hear our presentations nor did the local media!
However, the next day in a follow-up meeting a journalist from the Otago Daily News did show up and I am afraid I gave him an earful – which he dutifully reported.
He wrote:
At a question-and-answer session yesterday, Prof Connett said the university should be ashamed of its attitude to the fluoride debate.
''Is this tower so ivory that it doesn't matter?'' he asked.
''Taxpayers' money has gone in to funding people's education, their university degrees, their postgraduate degrees, their professorships and salaries, and they don't feel any obligation whatsoever to debate the science.''
Prof Connett said the public needed to hear both sides of the debate - ''to simply ignore us is unacceptable''. (see the full article)
Dr. Vyvyan Howard wrote a letter to the Otago Times responding to this article, but the paper did not publish it. Here it is:
Dear Sir

Re: Anti-fluoride campaigner invites university debate (6/9/18)

I was surprised to find no mention of the scientific issues, presented at the meeting, mentioned in your article. As one of the “trio” of “campaigners” (as described in your article) you made no mention of my qualifications and therefore of my influence to the discussion.

I am a medically qualified pathologist, specialized in the effects of toxic substances on the fetus. The last time I spoke in public on the topic of fluoride and health was 10 years ago in Toronto. I do not consider myself to be a campaigner but I am a medical professional with a concern for public health. The reason I have given up 2 weeks of a busy life to come to NZ is that I consider the findings of the latest published papers (of which you gave no mention) merit a civil and informed discussion amongst involved scientists from both sides of the argument.

I stated yesterday, in the presence of your reporter, that if I was in medical practice here in NZ I would be advising female patients who were considering starting a family to avoid drinking fluoridated tap water. This is based on the findings in the recent paper by Bashash et al which shows very clearly that fluoride is associated with a considerable fall in IQ (over 5 IQ points) in offspring in a dose dependent manner. This very well designed study mirrors the findings in over 30 prior studies. Not to have mentioned these facts will also probably have surprised your readership.

Yours sincerely
Vyvyan Howard

Sadly, few academics and politicians heard our words in person. Most citizens remain oblivious to the threat this practice presents to future generations of Kiwis.  But we did leave behind these three videos (see links above) and an hour long radio program.
We encourage all our supporters in NZ to do what they can to get as many people as possible to watch (and listen to) them and then send the links to their MPs.
 But hope may also be coming from a different direction. The Maori community is becoming involved. They are fighting the atrocity of dropping pellets of highly toxic sodium fluoroacetate (known as 1080) from helicopters on forests. This cruel and foolish program is designed to kill off possums and rats, which are threatening flightless birds. But the indiscriminate distribution of this horrible poison is killing other mammals, including domestic pets, deer, wild pigs and farm animals.  Here is a link to an award-winning video on this issue, “Poisoning Paradise.” 
On Saturday Sept 8, Declan, Mary and I (Vyvyan had already left for Northern Ireland) attended a very powerful Maori demonstration outside parliament house in Wellington and this was followed by a march. I have never witnessed such public emotion in NZ before. Another 43 demonstrations were held throughout the NZ on the same day. This has been the biggest ever demonstration of Maori feeling on this matter and people close to the organizers believe that the campaign will extend to other issues including fluoridation. Possible messages: Stop poisoning our land, our food, our water. Ban 1080, end fluoridation. Stop poisoning NZ.
Paul Connett,
Director of FAN 

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Published on 18 Sep 2018

Potsdam NY Fluoride Vote Sept 17, 2018 Part 5 And… the vote. Each of the trustees presents his or her position, and understanding. And then they vote. I guess the Constitution of the United States, and all that it stands for… does not apply to our universal natural human right to refuse to be medicated by a presumed authority against our will. Hmm…

Top 5 Food Slogan LIES

2 Fluoride “fights cavities” 

Image: Top 5 Food Slogan LIESOh, the insidious dental industry and deep state of America. Right after Hitler used fluoride to poison the Jews in the concentration camps of WWII, the known chemical insecticide began getting dripped into municipal taps in the USA, starting in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Currently, nearly 70 percent of all U.S. tap water contains sodium fluoride, a dangerous chemical byproduct of industries that causes brittle bones, lowered IQ, and cancer.
No, the fluoride in toothpaste and tap water is not the naturally occurring kind. You’ve been duped! That’s just another big lie perpetuated by the crooks at the ADA for nearly a century. In fact, overuse of fluoride actually leads to fluorosis. Do your teeth have white streaks, brown stains and cloudy splotches? Are your teeth pitting? Fluorosis is a tooth enamel defect caused by TOO MUCH fluoride intake during childhood. Never take fluoride tablets and stop drinking fluoridated tap water immediately.

USA - Keep Potsdam Smiling

Opinion: Colton man makes five point plan to ‘Keep Potsdam Smiling’
Tuesday, September 18, 2018 - 8:25 am
To the Editor:
A new plan called "Keep Potsdam Smiling" is a viable solution to replace the antiquated model of municipal water fluoridation.
Five key points:
• #1 Identification: Identify disadvantaged children and their families who don't have access to prevent tooth decay by using the same process as the current free school lunch program does. This can extend the benefits to the entire town, not just the village.
• #2 Distribution: Make freely available: toothpaste with fluoride (topical use), and fluoridated water and/or tablets (internal use) that the American Dental Association provides a standard dosing schedule for. This ensures those qualifying children/families who “choose”, will actually have “clear and direct access” to a “variety” of approved dental health items with a level of accountability that currently doesn’t exist: flushing fluoridated water down the drain is literally money down the drain with no gain.
• #3 Bonus: Provide a toothbrush along with a brief tutorial of best practices for brushing, to really bring home the importance of dental health to disadvantaged families. Also consider: the County is planning a fluoride varnish program and Potsdam could lead this initiative, adding to the list of benefits available to citizens who desire them.
• #4 Implementation: Staff it as a pilot program by allowing proactive volunteers willing to share all the benefits of fluoride with these families. This educates and promotes community involvement from enthusiastic supporters, while being sensitive to the needs of those who don’t want it.
Dental and health professionals working together, likely with donations from dental suppliers, can help make it a very successful campaign and reap the marvelous PR, thus promoting their cause, their business and their special interest in oral health and how they’ve used this to help their local community. As a sound model, it should easily be able to stand on its own and garner support, without the need to be artificially propped up like the current model.
• #5 Adoption: Potsdam can champion a win-win for all with adoption of this viable solution which supports multiple viewpoints to achieve each side’s goals, and helps to solve a problem rather than let it divide. Please consider this plan which is a reflection of everyone’s thoughtful concerns and a solution that addresses them in a very positive way. Thank you!
For additional information and discussion, please visit the "Clean Water Potsdam" group on Facebook.
Jerry Bartlett

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Daily Mail

'No evidence' having high levels of bad cholesterol causes heart disease, claim 17 physicians as they call on doctors to 'abandon' statins

  • Researchers have warned statins offer no protection to millions of people
  • The findings add to the ever-growing row over the cholesterol-busting pills
  • High levels of LDL-C has been considered a major cause of heart disease
  • The new study, of almost 1.3 million patients, shows there is no such link

Don't remember seeing this video before.

Monday, September 17, 2018

Not much to do with fluoride but I find it interesting when people reveal their innermost thoughts. She certainly has beautiful teeth.

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Saturday, September 15, 2018

From: Joy Warren

From: Joy Warren   Sent: 14 September 2018  Subject: Re: Northern Echo fluoride article.

It's looking serious.  PHE is having a group hug in Sunderland at the Stadium of Light on 19th September where we have to assume that they will be planning strategy to overcome opposition for fluoridating the entire North East.  Middlesborough is now caught up in this and we can expect Stockton on Tees to also get involved.  I'm hoping to get more information on Monday.
We're low on anti-fluoridationists in the North East and I am not too sure how we can rally our resources.   If the public consultation is handled as one exercise, then we have little hope of getting people throughout the threatened area to become galvanised into action.  In other words, it's too great an area for us to tackle.  This is entirely unlike Southampton where Hampshire County Council declared against WF and Southampton followed suite eventually.  
All we can do at the moment is to send all councillors up-to-date information and hope that commonsense will prevail.  However, the fossilised policy and power of PHE is overwhelming. 
Here are some abbreviated bitly url links to three utube videos which are required viewing.  Can you circulate them to your email list and ask that people tweet them or email them to other people, especially in the North East.     https://bit.ly/2xjWqay      https://bit.ly/2xoKgNZ     https://bit.ly/2CYiw8R

A Comment on my letter from the local surgery

I have tried several times recently to post comments on the blog but get blocked as I don't have a google account.  It seems that is the only way comments are accepted now.  Anyway, here are my thoughts on your flu jab post:

“Please support your surgery, funding from giving our patients their annual flu vaccinations enables us to provide them with other services throughout the year”

Trying to make us feel guilty Bill, but this is proof, if indeed proof were needed, that GPs get paid handsomely for injecting this poison into us and that is why it is pushed so aggressively every year.  Perhaps they could explain to us first how a syringe full of carcinogenic chemicals and adjuvants could possibly prevent disease, especially when PHE admitted last year that it doesn't work at all in the over 65s?

I had a similar letter from my GP surgery informing me that they have to order vaccine for every eligible patient in advance every year, so if I don't support my surgery the vaccine is wasted.  My letter went straight in the bin, as it does every year, so why don't they ask 'eligible' patients first before they order the vaccines?

Everyone I know who gets the flu jab, gets the flu.


If you can't make a comment email me billedmunds@gmail.com

Australia - Letter | Have your say, yes or no, on fluoride in the water

FIRSTLY, did you know that, on the night of July 17, 2018, when councillors made their votes known, five to three in favour of fluoridation, representatives from both NSW Health and the Australian Dental Association classified Oberon, our home town, as a low socio-economic town? Do you also know that children with mental impairments and other disabilities are automatically also classed as being from low socio-economic families? I don’t know how you feel about this statement, but I am highly offended.
I believe the fluoride that NSW Health and the Australian Dental Association and our very own yes voting councillors are pushing onto us against our own free will is in truth not safe and effective.
I believe that fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood, depresses thyroid activity by depriving it of iodine (women affected more than men), causes premature ageing and causes bone damage.
I believe the people who are employed to administer it into our water supplies are required to wear a hazmat suit.
I believe fluoride does not stop tooth decay, but actually causes teeth to rot and crumble, and by that very same mechanism also causes osteoporosis.
A group of concerned residents have done our research and have made a point of contacting you, the town residents, and anyone else interested from Oberon township. 
Yes, we were the ones knocking on every single door on the reticulated water supply and have spent many days and hours of our own time to be able to give you the opportunity to have your say.
Residents were asked unambiguously for their choice of fluoridation with a simple yes or no and if they were contacted by the NSW Health-initiated phone survey. 
There were many residents who indicated their gratitude that we had given them an opportunity to have a say. 
We feel so strongly that our councillors should have given every single one of us that very same option. However, they did not. They didn’t even attempt to make it possible for you to have your say other than the Community Consultation survey that very few people knew about. 
It was people from the Anti Fluoride Group who made the town aware that it was on the table yet again and they that made the effort to inform everyone and also organised pamphlets and the petitions available for us to sign.
What can you do if you were missed as you were not home and still want to have your say? 
We have made the same survey available for you to sign at the local post office where you can have your say either way.

Tracey Watson

USA Bedford County

Fluoride meeting for Bedford County residents being rescheduled.

Lynchburg News and Advance

Banned from reading this  by stupid EU laws on data protection

Friday, September 14, 2018

Letters: 'Fluoride adds "no statistically significant difference" to health of teeth'

THE Northern Echo (Sept 7) carried an article highlighting the discussion in Darlington Borough Council on whether to fluoridate Darlington’s water supply.

Poor oral health linked to deprivation is mentioned, and it is implied that adding fluoride would improve oral health in Darlington.

A 1986-1987 study of over 39,000 children in 84 areas in the United States found “no statistically significant difference” (to teeth) whether children ingested fluoride or not, so what is the point of adding it?

Fluorides pass the placenta in pregnancy, and can harm the unborn, but Mother Nature has ensured human breast milk contains little. Now why do you think that is?

We have evolved (like other mammals) to cope with limited amounts, but to lace our water with an untested, un-natural fluoride is nothing short of reckless endangerment, for no benefit (except to big business).

Fluorine is a sinister dangerous element that forms compounds with other toxic elements (like lead) that are more insidiously toxic than either alone. It does this in water mains if chloramine is present.

Should Darlington Borough Council make yet another huge error, we should have no mercy on them on May 2, 2019.

M Watson, Darlington

Thursday, September 13, 2018

I've just received again an invite to have a free flu vaccination from my local surgery with a slip for me to let them know if I do not want it. (No stamped letter enclosed)
What I find incredulous is that it appeals to me to support my surgery.

Please support your surgery, funding from giving our patients their annual flu vaccinations enables us to provide them with other services throughout the year”

It says the vaccination is usually very well tolerated.

I haven't had a cold let alone flu for years yet many of my U3A friends who have the jab often do. I'd rather have a good diet with exercise and alcohol free life with a belief in something greater than government advice.

I suppose they would say as a reason for doing it was if people get flu because they were not vaccinated it would cost the NHS more than giving flu shots. Do we believe that and what about the mercury in the flu shots.

The money wasted with fluoridation attempts and vaccination schemes.


Fluoride in water study in Darlington is supported

Councillor Cyndi HughesCouncillor Cyndi Hughes

A STUDY is set to be launched to examine the possibility of adding fluoride to the public water supply in a town with a high incidence of tooth decay in youngsters.

Darlington Borough Council’s leading members voted to carry out a technical appraisal to inform possible consideration of a water fluoridation scheme across the borough or the Tees Valley.

The study will look at whether the water distribution network is able to support any potential fluoridation scheme and the potential impact on neighbouring areas.

The Cabinet meeting was told a technical appraisal had already been commissioned by Middlesbrough Borough Council on the behalf of NHS England and the other Tees authorities.

Councillor Chris Taylor, chair of the council’s Joint Review Group examining children’s health issues in the town, said the evidence of links between fluoride in water and lower incidences of dental decay in nearby towns had led to the move.

Councillor Cyndi Hughes, the council’s children and young people’s boss, added: “The fluoridation question came out of the information and evidence that far too many young people are admitted to hospital because of dental caries at very young ages, so this is coming from an evidence base already.”

Suggestions that the town’s water supply could be fluoridated have already drawn controversy, with campaigners questioning the safety of the mineral.

Councillor Heather Scott said: “It has got to be emphasised this is just a technical appraisal. Quite a few of us as councillors have already been receiving objections to it. That’s not what we’re talking about here, it’s just about finding the evidence.”

While the council would fund any water fluoridation programme, the cost of the technical appraisal, which is yet to be finalised, is being shared across all participating councils within the Tees Valley and NHS England. Funding has been earmarked from existing budgets and there is not expected to be an extra financial impact on Darlington council.

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Same s the Echo report

Story image for fluoride from Hampshire ChronicleOver 120000 children haven't seen a dentist in a year, figures reveal
Hampshire Chronicle-3 hours ago

In the past few years civic chiefs had also considered plans to add fluoride to Southampton's water supply in a bid to improve children's teeth. But the proposals ...

Steven what do you say about this?

Yorkshire Water


We're governed by Local Authorities and Public Health England on this issue. It is up to each local authority to conduct consultations on proposals of new fluoridation schemes. If local authorities carry out proper public consultation and can prove the public supports such a move, they can ask Public Health England to direct their local water company to fluoridate.
Any fluoride that is present in the water is naturally occurring. Go to our post code look up to check the fluoride levels in your water - click here

USA - Opinion: Anti-Fluoride Activists Lack Knowledge

Fluoride in water is not a "drug," nor is there any evidence of it being "neurotoxic."
In a recent Lund Report opinion piece, anti-fluoridation activist, Rick North, once again demonstrated the danger to the health of the public created by activists who have neither the education, experience or knowledge to understand a health care issue such as fluoridation.
So, let’s again set the record straight on his repetitious claims:
1. No court of last resort has ever ruled in favor of North’s nonsensical argument that existing fluoride ions in water have suddenly become a “drug.”...............................

Steven D. Slott is the communications officer for the American Fluoridation Society and a general dentist in Burlington, North Carolina.

Haven't read anything lately from Steven nice to know he is well and active as I'm sure his offensive diatribe against us  harms his own cause.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Open Parachute

Fluoridation: “debating” the science?

How the anti-fluoride activist envisages their debate challenge – their hero standing up against the might of the health authorities. Image credit: From the Coliseum to the Cage
New Zealand last week saw another “debate challenge” from anti-fluoride activists. But are their regular challenges serious? And do gladiatorial “debates” before partisan audiences have any value in science anyway?
These people often back away when their bluff is called. Their challenges have more to do with political tactics than any elaboration or clarification of the science. They appeal to the macho and combative attitudes of the intended audience.
One thing for sure, such “debates” do not advance scientific knowledge one iota – nor are they meant to.
The anti-fluoride hero is always victorious in the eyes of the partisan and faithful audience. Image credit: The Real Lives of the Gladiators of Rome – The Unfathomable Sport of Life and Death
Three Wise Men – the anti-fluoride activists Paul Connett, Declan Waugh and Vivyian Howard – visited New Zealand last week. Fluoride Free NZ (FFNZ) advertised these activists as “international experts . . .  “sharing the latest research.” Of course, the implications that these activists actually do any original research on fluoridation or what they were sharing was their own research were completely false.

This was just another one of those annual visits from Paul Connett (head of the US Fluoride Action Network) and his mates with the aim of misrepresenting and distorting the science so as to promote the political campaigns of the local anti-fluoridation brigade.

Anti-fluoride campaign puts all its eggs in the IQ basket

New Zealanders are rather tired of this sort of activism but the visit does represent an escalation. This year Three Wise Men, a few years back Two Wise men (Paul Connett and  Bill Hirzy) and before that just one wise man (Paul Connett). Is this a sign of increasing desperation as New Zealand moves ever so slowly to handing over decisions on community water fluoridation to District Health Boards? Or is it a sign of increased funding of the Fluoride Action Network and associated activist groups by the “natural”/alternative health industry? After all, it must cost a bit to send three spokespersons around the globe for just two meetings.
One thing I take from this activity is that the anti-fluoride movement has decided to put all its eggs in one basket – the IQ story. They won’t stop blaming fluoridation for all the ills of the world – from obesity to gender confusion. But they are deliberately making a determined effort to bring their IQ story onto centre stage.
The real experts and all the research indicate the main possible negative health effect which must be considered when planning introduction of fluoridation is mild forms of dental fluorosis. In contrast, anti-fluoride activists in the USA and NZ are attempting to present the main health effect that must be considered is a claimed decline in IQ.
The FFNZ advert shows this is the message the Three Wise Men were promoting in New Zealand. But the “latest research” they were “sharing” was not theirs but that of Basash et al., (2016). Or, rather, they were sharing a misrepresentaion and distortion of that research to fit their scarmongering claims.
I won’t repeat my analysis of the Bashash et al., (2016) paper and its misrepresentation here – readers can refer back to my articles:
A draft of my article critiquing the Bashash et al., (2016) paper, “Predictive accuracy of a model for child IQ based on maternal prenatal urinary fluoride concentration.” is also available online.

The predictable debate challenge

No visit by Paul Connett would be complete without a challenge to debate the science with him. He is frustrated with the fact that his audiences are almost completely faithful anti-fluoride activists. The academics, experts and health authorities did not turn up to his meeting at Otago University so he claims “they don’t feel any obligation whatsoever to debate the science” and ”to simply ignore us is unacceptable” (see Anti-fluoride campaigner invites university debate).
Similarly, he blamed others and claimed his anti-fluoride message was being ignored when only three MPs turned up for his meeting at the NZ Parliament Building last February. That was disingenuous as he had been given plenty of time for a presentation to the Health Committee during the consultations on the Fluoridation Bill last year. And MPs are regularly bombarded with huge amounts of propaganda from anti-fluoride activists. Obviously, MPs feel so inundated with such propaganda that they see no need to attend yet another meeting to hear the same old message.
Connett’s challenges to “debate the science” in front of a partisan audience have more to do with political propaganda and enthusing activists than with science. He knows scientific knowledge does not progress by holding gladiatorial circuses. It progresses by long, careful and detailed research, publication and peer review.
Neither of these Three Wise Men has performed any original research on community water fluoridation but they can still make their input via the peer review process – which include post-publication peer review via critiques of published papers.
To be fair, Connett and other members of the Fluoride Action network have occasionally presented such critiques. Two examples come to mind – the studies of  McLaren et al., (2016) and of Broadbent et al., (2015). These were critiqued in responses published in these same journals by a number of opponents of fluoridation. The original authors responded in the same journals. Arguments and extra data were presented in the responses and the science is better off for those critiques.
But science does not gain one iota from Connett’s attacks on the New Zealander Broadbent and other researchers in the media or in his meetings with the faithful. Such attacks and macho comments, often bordering on ad hominem, only discredit the attacker. They are not the way to discuss science and yet Paul Connett and his supporters challenge genuine scientists to participate in such “debates’ which are nothing more than testostorone-laden slanging matches.

A farcical example of a debate challenge

This time around I got personally involved because I called the bluff of activists making yet another debate challenge. It came out of an online discussion where I was attempting to correct some mistaken claims made by anti-fluoride activists. Here is the challenge:

Screenshot of my invite – just as well a have this as this Facebook page subsequently deleted the invitation and all comments I had made. I am officially a nonperson there.
A game of chicken followed where I attempted to get Fluoride Free NZ (FFNZ) and Paul Connett to formally stand behind the challenge. Chicken because I recognised it was a game. I had a scientific exchange (“debate”) with Paul four years ago – I think it was useful and I believe this is how good faith scientific discussions should take place (see Connett & Perrott, 2014: The Fluoride Debatefor the full exchange). But Paul had made clear to me some time ago that he wanted no further contact with me.
Sure enough, FFNZ very quickly retreated from the possibility they had offered of a one on one debate. I emailed FFNZ:
“I think a one on one exchange would be best and as Paul and I have similar expertise he would be the logical discussion partner.”
Their response:
“No we will only agree to two on two.”
Paul confirmed that he would not debate one on one with me. I accepted a two on two “debate” but pointed out it was their responsibility, not mine, to organise the speakers. If they were not prepared to do that I suggested a two on one “debate” (especially as being the only speaker on one side this would give me extra presentation time) but made clear that I would effectively ignore Vyvyan Howard because our expertise did not cross over. (Vivyan agree with me that as he is a pathologist “you are correct that a direct discussion between us would be unbalanced.”)
I also made clear I would not tolerate any attempt to use that format to argue that I was isolated and could not find anyone else in New Zealand to support my arguments (an implication Paul made in our email exchange, and, of course, a claim being parroted by his supporters on social media).
Paul then formally withdrew. A pity as I love Wellington and was looking forward to a visit at someone else’s cost.
So a farce, But wait. there is more. The Facebook page, Rethink Fluoride, deleted their invitation to this “debate.” They then followed by deleting all my comments on their posts. Rather ironic as I had a few days before congratulated them by allowing open comments, and in particular allowing scientific comments – something all other anti-fluoride Facebook pages refused to allow.


Debate challenges by anti-fluoride activists are never genuine. They do not wish to discuss the science – they are simply using the challenges to enthuse their true-believing supporters. It is a form of attack on genuine researchers and health experts.
There is a time and place for good faith scientific exchange – post-publication peer review, for example, can give a genuine avenue for any real critiques to appear and be considered. Testosterone-laden gladiatorial debates before partisan audiences do not.
Anti-fluoride activists are disingenuously using these “debate challenges” to imply that experts and researchers have no confidence in their science and are afraid. It’s simply a macho tactic which often descends into ad hominem attacks.
My Comment
I'm against fluoridation  having been involved for many years I've found those who promote fluoride mainly a nasty lot.  I don't believe it right to dump tons of impure poisonous waste in our drinking water each year.
There is a risk of fluorosis and thyroid problems. Look at the obesity especially in the USA and here in the West Midlands.
As in the last entry when the free dental treatment for children is not taken up they still claim the underprivileged are at risk. You can make us submit but you can't make parents take their children for the free checkups.

Read the Daily Mail cover of the letters between Winston Churchill and his "dear" mummy who was horrible to him. He had an abscess and two teeth out while in boarding school, much to her annoyance. Telling him he would regret it.