Demand evidenceThis will be the final post on the public discussion with associated professor Rita Barnett-rose. Rita has told me she not be following up on my last reply with her. She says “I have attempted to address some of your initial concerns in my current draft/revision. However, we clearly disagree on the reasonable legal/ethical parameters of compulsory public health initiatives.” and she doesn’t intend to continue debating this. It’s a little disappointing not able to discuss the topic more with her, but there is always more discussions out there 🙂

To sum up, I have shown that there was fundamental problems with her draft paper and as others have said, she was out of her realm of knowledge and expertise on this topic. I will be watching out for her final copy of her paper. With her saying that she will get an “independent review of my article from several highly qualified scientists/researchers”; I hope to see some large changes around the science in her arguments.

Full discussions In order:

  1. Rita’s original paper
  2. My first response
  3. Rita’s first response
  4. My second response

Dr Ken Perrott has also put a copy of the full discussions on his Open Parachute site.

  1. Fluoride debate: The scientific evidence against fluoridation – Rita F. Barnett
  2. Fluoride debate: A response to Rita Barnett-Rose – Daniel Ryan
  3. Fluoride debate: Response to Daniel Ryan’s critique – Rita Bartlett-Rose
  4. Fluoride debate: Second response to Rita Barnett-Rose – Daniel Ryan