Dr Broadbent recently finished his study into I.Q loss in children to fluoride.
This found no link and this has upset the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) no end. They have been dining out on the “Harvard” papers for years and even regurgitated them last year to start all over again.
The fact articles like this have trashed the paper does not seem to worry FAN. Now they have published a rebuttal about the Broadbent paper [well they had to really, the Harvard paper was their gravy train]. This has been released to the natural health websites, and this has been like a blue whale falling into the Kermadec Trench, every bottom feeder has had a bite, and as such, the rebuttal has spread like a fire around the Natural Health sites on the net, any news being good news for some.
Most sites worth its salt would treat this paper like an Indian rape trial  and want nothing to do with it.
So what do we have, a well-respected scientific paper from a respected author and university with a PHD and a BDS being picked up by an equally well-respected American Journal of Public health.
The FAN rebuttal was written by Paul Connett, who has no qualifications relating to human health and is not a registered health professional, and is a self-proclaimed expert in fluoride, who has not had a paper published in his name about fluoride.
The credibility question is a no brainer really.

Written by Chris Price.