“Luke, will you be identifying submitters who also have a relationship with the DHB members. Family members etc. As you said that you will be doing with the other groups?”

It’s clear that the MoH have a vested interest in the oral health of New Zealand children, fluoridation reduces dental caries which (among other things) reduces the cost of dental services for Under 18’s.

As such their vested interest will be duly noted.

Thanks again for the interest in my research.

Oh Dear, Kane. You are wrong to claim: ” Skegg and Gluckman have put their name to a document.” They are not authors – having simply commissioned the review as leaders of their organisations at the request of a number of local body councils who are fed up with all the misinformation and confusion coming from political activists.

I am sure they are comfortable with the report – most people are – including me.

Now I have done a thorough analysis of the report from your organisation which attempted to discredit the review – so I am quite happy to particpate in a discussion or exchange of opinion on the Review and your organisation’s report.

You misrepresent me agian – I am very keen for an open and transparent discssuion on the issue. I have found your orgnaisations are the only ones trying to prevent this by blocking me, and any other pro-science people, from discussion on your facebook pages.

Put you money where your mouth is and stop censoring your pages to prevent this discussion.

Ken, Fluoridation is now clearly a national debate. Skegg and Gluckman have put their name to a document that says it is ‘safe and effective’. Why don’t they just front up and defend questions about it? Surely if they had reservations they wouldn’t have signed off on the report. So they must have been comfortable with it.

It seems interesting that you would not want an open public transparent discussion about fluoridation.

Kane, you misrepresent me. I am not at all opposed to a discussion with Gluckman and Skegg – why should I be?

But you are not being honest as you refuse to articulate any of the questions you might ask of them. And why them, why not someone who is expert in this field. These people are just representatives of organisations and it would be inappropriate for them to comment on details of reviews they commissioned but did not author. Only a silly person would “promote” your idea.

If you wish to ask questions about the Fluoridation Review they are the wrong people to ask. But anyway, you have your opportunity to ask here. I have done a thorough critique of your organisation’s report and you are not disagreeing with it, or posing questions about it.

Perhaps you can’t find anything wrong with my critique? 🙂

Significantly only one of the authors of your report has taken up my offer of a right of reply – I am posting his response today. All the other authors and “peer-reviewers have refused to take up the offer or have refused to respond to it.

That says a lot, doesn’t it?

So as far as your “questions” are concerned – a suitable response would be “put up or shut up!”

Luke, will you be identifying submitters who also have a relationship with the DHB members. Family members etc. As you said that you will be doing with the other groups?

Ken, I’m not sure why you don’t want to promote a full open honest transparent discussion with a neutral moderator with Gluckman/Skegg?

Why don’t you want this to happen?

“Just to clarify, you will be including the MOH/DHB as a vested interest in your study?”

Absolutely. I will making reference to the MoH and Waikato DHB

After all they have a vested interest in the Oral health of New Zealand children.

“I see what you mean there is definitely a conspiracy going on here.”

Strawman

Thanks for taking an interest in my research, i’ll let you know when it’s finished.

Just to clarify, you will be including the MOH/DHB as a vested interest in your study?

I see a number of family connections in the MOH/DHB submissions. I see what you mean there is definitely a conspiracy going on here.

Hi Kane,

I think you are misunderstanding the scope of the research.

While it’s worthwhile considering salt and milk fluoridation in Europe and / or better social welfare systems to combat (oral) health inequalities, neither would inform the research question.

The purpose of this research is to determine what role vested interests have played in furthering what was a minority viewpoint and what implications that has for participatory democracy.

I can see some green shoots in your line of questioning though, have you considered an undergraduate degree in Political Science?

“Luke, will you be questioning a range of commissioners, to see how they assess submissions, and disseminate their answers?”

A comprehensive breakdown of data collection will be provided when the paper is completed. It would be premature to discuss such things prior to publication.

The small data set and poster was released to Making Sense of Fluoride to coincide with what was made publicly available on Feb 13th.

Thanks for taking an interest in my research.