Stan Litras from Great Teeth Dental Care left us feedback to our Facts on Fluoride Action Network’s visit to NZ press release.

Hi Dan, Ken and pals. My wife, Ellen, does not have a Facebook account as you are aware. As a favour, she has requested I post her quote. As her husband and best friend, I have agreed to do so…

“MSOF: I am saddened by the indignity of your regard for Paul Connett. You claim to be proponents of science, discussing, critiquing and debunking… or at least certainly attempting with much gusto to debunk scientific literature that is an ill-fit with your fluoridation agenda. Commonly I find splashed across your Facebook page cries of poor methodology and confounding factors not accounted for. Oh my goodness! Flaws! In scientific papers! Well, from my investigations I have found that perfect research is hard to come by! If you try hard enough you can find fault in even the most coveted studies. And it seems to me that when you run out of bullets to fire at studies that, shall we say, don’t fit the bill, many regular MSOF contributors merrily resort to petty digs, personal insults, and defamatory statements against colleagues who do not share the MSOF view of the literature.

Dan and Ken, it is not “Dr Paul Connett”. As you are more than aware, it is “Professor Paul Connett”. And Paul is not a ‘fringe dweller’ or ‘a quack’. He has a mainstream qualification (a PHD in chemistry) from a reputable international university. Furthermore, from the perspective of his training, Paul has dedicated years of his life to studying the science behind fluoridation. Tens of thousands of hours. What about you folk at MSOF? I’m not normally one to prompt “proboscis” measuring contests, but I venture that even if we consider all of your efforts combined, Paul has critiqued more fluoridation studies and in greater depth. Paul has travelled the world over and over at his own expense for years on end giving public talks (many free and others with a nominal charge to cover venue expenses), and co-wrote and published a well-known text which has made no profit and which lists a substantial chunk of his most commonly referenced citations up to, if I recall correctly, 2010. I for one feel most grateful for Paul’s dedication to science and commitment to encouraging every Joe and Jane Bloggs, key decision maker, and health professional around the globe to discuss fluoridation and fluoridation health policy, including whether in fact it is justified. He is not the only science PHD around, but he is without a doubt one of the most principled. This is one Professor who is not for sale or hire, who honours and cherishes science, a Professor with zero commercial bias who detests corporates cloaking their interests in scientific pretences, because he is absolutely passionate about science and scientific values. He is a purist and has nothing but contempt for those who mock science by illogically and erroneously using it to endorse nonsense endeavours. Professor Paul Connett is to be applauded for this. Try as hard as you can to dig dirt on this man of science and you will be bitterly disappointed. His record both personally and professionally is spotless.

In closing, I consider Professor Connett’s scientific position on water fluoridation reflects the weight of evidence, and I am convinced by his assertion that health risks cannot be excluded, that current research reflects this, that more and more studies will emerge linking fluoridation to health and developmental problems, and that the precautionary principle is warranted and thus fluoridation should cease immediately.

A final matter: if even one regular contributor to MSOF has a resume that is even remotely comparable to Professor Connett’s in terms of his investigations of fluoridation science and also his tireless public service I would sincerely be interested in hearing about it! In closing, because I object to the slurs and mudslinging that occurs all too frequently on the MSOF page, this is my last post and I will do my utmost best to make others aware that MSOF has a “science is settled” approach to fluoridation i.e., MSOF has a clear fluoridation bias and proactively seeks to discredit rather than objectively consider new science that challenges this position, and that anyone looking for polite stimulating and fruitful discussion/ debate should avoid MSOF like the plague. No more to add.

Farewell, and happy pertinacious debunking and clod-hurling folks.

Ellen.”

We thank Stan and Ellen for giving us feedback. We acknowledge we are not perfect and always looking for areas that this society can improve. But I hope to clear up some claims that were said.

MSOF

Proponents of science

Yes, we are “proponents of science”. The objectives of the MSoF incorporated society are:

• To foster awareness and dispel misinformation regarding fluoride with a focus on CWF.
• Use the scientific method as the foundational platform upon which this awareness is promoted.

We continue to use only the best evidence and the scientific consensus.

Agenda

We have no “fluoridation agenda”. I can’t speak for the rest, but personally, I’m pro-science so I hate to see misinformation and I don’t want to see unnecessary suffering from children. If you call that an agenda, so be it.

Science is settled

As Sir Peter Gluckman has said, “the science of fluoride in water is effectively settled”. We are all for continued monitoring and more peer review research around water fluoridation. When there is a repeatable high-quality study that shows fluoridation causes harm then we will be joining the scientific community to get it removed.

Paul Connett

Title

We know Dr Paul Connett has an Emeritus Professor title, but he is also has a PhD in Chemistry, so either title is fine. I tried to look up which is more respectable and came to an article – Dr Who or Professor Who? On Academic Email Etiquette – that says:

In the USA, the title Professor is used differently, often in a teaching context (e.g., in class, or in emails between students and their teachers) and is not reserved for senior academics with PhDs etc. The majority of our US/academic respondents felt that “Dear Dr ” was the most appropriate way to address a full professor – recognising their academic qualification. Some responses implied that “Dr” is seen as a higher status title (contrasting with the UK position), but there was less consensus about this and the titles appear more interchangeable in the US.

Quack?

If someone has a mainstream qualification it doesn’t mean they are not “a quack” in some way. For example, Dr Linus Pauling, who won two Nobel Prizes, believed that high-dose vitamin C cured cancer and other ills, even though no other study supported this.

Our press release didn’t call Dr Connett a quack, it just pointed out his flaws. Quackwatch does have an article on him though and he has shown that he has a distrust for vaccines and seems to believe in a conspiracy around the FDA and the CDC and the “pharmaceutical industry”.

Did you know?

Dr Paul Connett lives in Binghamton in upstate New York. Binghamton is fluoridated, as is most of New York state, and most of America too.

 

MSOF Resume

At MSoF we have several dentists, scientists and other health experts helping us out. We have many people who have more experience in terms of their degrees, the number of peer-reviewed papers written and even the number of hours of research than Dr Connett. Most of our experts like to stick to the background because they do not want to be attacked by anti-fluoridationists; some are even worried about their own children if they speak out. MSoF gives these experts a way to speak out behind a respected society to remove the misinformation around fluoridation.

While Dr Connett might be a good chemist and we are not denying this, he can’t call himself a toxicologist, a dentist, a general practitioner, etc. Even if we didn’t have any experts behind us, we are not the ones going against the scientific consensus, unlike Dr Connett.

Cherishes Science

Dr Connett’s organisation, FAN, has close financial links to Joseph Mercola and is part of his “Health Liberty” organisation. And Mercola makes all sorts of ‘illogical and erroneous’ claims about science e.g. that statins and vaccines are bad, and that HIV does not cause AIDS. If he “cherishes science” he wouldn’t be working with Mercola. Skeptoid voted Mercola to be one of the top 10 anti-science websites around.

Science

Precautionary Principle

I feel you are abusing the precautionary principle. As you should know dental decay remains the single most prevalent common chronic (and irreversible) disease among all ages, and disparities still exist in oral health. Consequences include; pain, infection, bad breath and foul tastes, impaired chewing ability, tooth loss, compromised appearance, decreased the quality of life, personal financial costs as well as indirect costs to society. Without fluoridation, you are knowingly putting unnecessary suffering on children.

Flaws in Papers

The hierarchy of scientific evidence

No peer-reviewed paper is perfect, but that is no reason to ignore the hierarchy of scientific evidence. We shouldn’t be focusing on low-quality research when there have been better studies written. The anti-fluoride groups do this all the time. There have been 17 major peer-reviews of fluoridation undertaken across the world by recognised academic authorities in the past twenty years, all showing the safety and efficiency of fluoridation. There is no respected health organisation that is against fluoridation.

Recently, dental leaders, representing over one million dentists in 134 countries, reaffirmed their strong support for fluoridation as essential in promoting oral health. The assembly of the annual meeting of the FDI, world dental federation, reaffirmed its strong support for fluoridation. They stated that:

• — Over seventy years of research and recent systematic reviews have shown that water fluoridation is an effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay in children and adults.
• — Water fluoridation is particularly appropriate for populations demonstrating moderate to high risk of dental decay.
• — Water fluoridation confers positive health savings and contributes to reducing disparities in the rates of dental decay in communities.
• — At the fluoride concentrations recommended for the prevention of dental decay, scientific research and reviews show that human general health is not adversely affected.
• —The public health benefits of water fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay far outweigh the possible occurrence of very mild/mild dental fluorosis.

TLDR

MSoF will stick with the scientific consensus and best evidence instead of following the views of the founder and leading protagonist of ‘Fluoride Action Network – a single-issue activist group.

We thank Stan and Ellen for the criticism.

The post Our reply to criticisms on MSoF appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

They will speak at meetings organised by Fluoride Free NZ (FFNZ) – a local activist group affiliated to FAN – in Thames (Tuesday 24th February) and Taupo (Wednesday 25th February).

FFNZ will also promote these meetings, and their anti-fluoride message, via media releases and media interviews with Drs. Connett and Hirzy while they are in New Zealand.

Making Sense of Fluoride (MSoF) provides the following background information for news media covering this visit.

Background information on speakers and organisations.

1: FAN is the main U.S. based activist group and is very active in promoting an anti-fluoride message within the US and internationally. It is affiliated internationally to anti-fluoride groups throughout the world, including in Australia and New Zealand.

FAN is organisationally linked to the “natural” health/alternative medicine industry and the anti-vaccination movement through Mercola LLC’s Health Liberty Coalition. It is, at least in part, funded by the “natural’ health industry through the Mercola LLC company. This company also helps fund the anti-vaccination movement.

Mercola LLC reportedly brought in about $7 million in 2010, and has received three warning letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for violations of U.S. marketing laws, two of which charged Mercola with making false and misleading claims regarding the marketing of several natural supplemental products, which violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.

FAN promotes its anti-fluoride message through media links to “natural” health/alternative medicine publications and websites and general press releases and articles via its network. It is also very active in reviewing and misinterpreting scientific publications

2: Speaker details:

A: Dr. Paul Connett has a PhD in chemistry. Now retired, he previously worked as a lecturer at St. Lawrence University, USA.

Although presented by his organisation and its local affiliates as “the world expert on fluoridation,” Dr. Connett has no research background in fluoride or fluoridation. His book, articles and presentations are based on his own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the scientific work of others as presented in the scientific literature. (For example, in 2005 Professor John Spencer of Adelaide University said, “Dr. Connett misrepresents (my) study as an analysis of the benefits of water fluoridation, which it was not.  He also misinterprets the study’s indirect evidence on the benefits of water fluoridation on decay.”). He uses these misinterpretations to provide apparent authority to his anti-fluoride message.

Dr. Connett’s only relevant publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals are two letters to the editor and one, as junior author, of a review paper. The senior author of that paper, Anna Strunecká, is an Advisory Board member of FAN.

B: Dr.William Hirzy has a PhD in chemistry. Now retired, he formerly worked as a union official in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)?

Dr. Hirzy has made statements and submission on fluoride and fluoridation in his role as a union leader. Unfortunately these are often disingenuously presented as representing the EPA and its scientific staff. They do not.

Hirzy’s only publications on fluoride or fluoridation in peer-reviewed scientific journals are two from 2013. The first argued that it is cost-effective to replace fluorosilicic acid as a fluoridating agent with sodium fluoride. The second paper effectively withdrew the conclusions of the first – admitting to a simple arithmetic error producing a 70-fold error in calculated costs which lead to a reversal of his conclusions.

3: Tactics of anti-fluoride activists.

Activist organisations like FAN and FFNZ target local body councils with campaigns to halt community water fluoridation or prevent its introduction using mass submission campaigns with templates provided by organisers. Submissions usually contain cherry-picked and misrepresented scientific citations which can impress and influence councillors who have little scientific background.

These organisations target newspapers with letter writing campaigns which usually attempt to discredit scientific and health organisations and experts.

Dr Paul Connett has made annual summer visits to New Zealand as part of these campaigns.

4: MSoF and contacts for comment

“Making Sense of Fluoride” is an incorporated society, whose main aim is to counter much of the misinformation on the internet and printed media related to community water fluoridation. We are a combination of students, academics and medical professionals advocating that this significant public health initiative be maintained in Australasia given the longstanding scientific consensus on its safety and efficacy.

For comments on the visit of Drs. Connett and Hirzy contact:

Dr. Ken Perrott

Email: ken.perrott@msof.nz

5: On-line resources

Review by Royal Society of NZ and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor – Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence

NZ Community Water Fluoridation is Safe and Effective: A critique of Fluoride Free NZ’s criticisms of the NZ Fluoridation Review by Dr Ken Perrott

The Fluoride Debate – Paul Connett and Ken Perrott

Jason M Armfield “When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature“

The post Press release: facts on Fluoride Action Network’s visit to NZ appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.