Ken,
Just read your latest Declan Waugh post. Can’t argue with your critique. However, completely separate from Waugh, one point we’d like to challenge you on is this one:
The authors did toss a small glimmer of hope the hypochondriacs who claim fluoride sensitivity is real. The differences in reported decline in incidence of ailments between the fluoridated and supposed fluoridated groups are statistically insignificant for almost all the tested ailments. The exception was for “skin rashes” and the authors say:
“However, the significant decrease in the number of other skin rashes leaves room for speculation, seeming to favor the view that a small segment of the population may have some kind of intolerance to fluoride. This group of people should be studied further.”
The again, it is not uncommon to get a false positive when considering a large number of ailments in the same study.
Ken, instead of dismissing this possibility, we challenge you to call for more targeted research. The NHMRC (Australia) called for more research in 1991 on potential sensitivity; as did the NRC (US) in 2006.
Surely – at the very least, in the interests of scientific curiosity – you would like to see this matter clarified? If you are not interested in seeing it resolved by proper controlled trials, it would be appreciated if you would articulate your reasoning.
It seems to us that the promoters of fluoridation are not interested in following up research recommendations that may show actual negative effects of fluoridation. Since 1991, nothing has been done to resolve this issue scientifically. Here is your chance to raise the profile of the outstanding research issue.
afamildura.wordpress.com 
August 21, 2014 at 01:07
I started having dry mouth, bleeding gums and a chronic throat irritation concurrent with using fluoridated water, although filtered for chlorine removal. I ultimately found a group of natural dental products that seemed to alleviate, if not eliminate, my symptoms. Just dry mouth and a minor allergic cough remained.
When my dentist insisted I use a fluoridated rinse, I not only had those soft tissue conditions worsen, I also found I had burning & frequent urination. I returned to my non-fluoridated products. I experimented a few times to confirm my bladder issues were connected to my mouthwash. Who knew?!*!
I recently stopped using the fluoridated water, and I am now sleeping through the night. Also, my kidneys don’t ache anymore.
Yup, that’s not scientific evidence…. but anecdotes like these should prompt the studies, and give pause to those who dismiss the claims of the hypersensitive.
August 3, 2014 at 15:13
AF, the published data so far does not support the fluoride sensitivity story. But if you believe more research should be done go ahead and promote it. After all, you guys claim you have the majority if scientists on your side (look at all those names on the petitions) so there shouldn’t be a problem in winning support for such research. Get the people currently putting millions into legal action into putting their money into financing private commercial research contracts. Get your “world expert” Paul Connett to submit research proposals (although I think he has burned his bridges credibility-wise).
But do the sort of thing people do when they honestly believe there is a case for research. And that is not whining.
I suggest that if you use obvious frauds like Germouse to make the cause you will be chopping yourself off at the knees. Just use the existing research results subpages sting the possibility no any credible examples which could be explained by fluroide sensitivity. Just keep away from the nutters.
And speak out against people like Declan Waugh who are promoting such fraudulent rubbish. If you don’t you also lose credibility. Why should any credible researcher listen to your case if you are promoting crooks like Waugh and Connett.
August 3, 2014 at 18:50
Parrot, every sane person can see that you are the fraud, nutter, and crook, bird brain. You are so stupid and dishonest you try to make out that water must be either both fluoridated and chlorinated, or neither, when it is obvious that it can be one and not the other. As usual you behave like your forced-fluoridation freak hero Robert Kehoe, who was also the main defender of leaded gasoline, with his “show me the data” mentality. If you didn’t have your beak up your backside, you would know what is wrong with that kind of thinking. It could hardly be more obvious that you are just a political hack, because you do everything you can to avoid a genuine scientific discussion. You have been asked more than a dozen times to provide some credible evidence to support your position, and you can ever come up with anything, just like the rest of the forced-fluoridation fruitcakes.
August 3, 2014 at 22:15
The burden is on those forcing fluoride into water supplies to pursue these matters; and the burden should not be placed upon those trying to avoid fluoridated water, to do so.
August 4, 2014 at 00:35
Agreed.
August 2, 2014 at 19:39
It’s bloody of obvious, that the parrot (+ his ilk) is an evil crook, very evil indeed!
What a lying sick bastard, it’s unbelievable!!
He must be working for the corrupt drug companies, or big pharma, so it seems…
It’s certainly not in our best interests, that’s for sure, but for HIS very own, inc his masters?!??
Of course the liar (+ his ilk) will continue to claim that it is in our very best interest, to continue to drink, swallow, bath, shower & soak in diluted industrial waste, even with traces of uranium etc; and anyone who opposes him is a sheer lunatic, but the reality of the matter is, he & his ilk are the lunatics!! Words cannot even express these types of evil bastards!!
August 2, 2014 at 10:33
You should have noticed that the Finnish authors actually said “this group of people should be studied further.” I of course endorse that – I did not dismiss the possibility. Please notice the word “possibility.”
There are of course problems in identifying people who may be sensitive in this way and then carrying out a trial because so many of these people who make claims like these are just frauds (Your mate Dan Germouse is an obvious example). Especially if they do relate them specifically to F. They are not in the position to know, but they are in the position to invent all sorts of ills arising from fluoride. The reality is that more people are probably genuinely sensitive to the chlorine in our water.
Far more serious though is the absolute fraud Declan Waugh is promoting. That is very serious and it is being actively spread by anti-fluoride propagandist on social media. You should strongly condemn both Waugh’s fraudulent behaviour and the behaviour of anti-fluoride propagandists who roo it’s such rubbish.
Failure to do so only weakens you own position.
August 2, 2014 at 17:10
Parrot, the possibility that my sensitivity is to chlorine in the water has been ruled out, you fucking retard. As a child, I had pneumonia and some gastrointestinal problems (both of which have been linked to fluoride toxicity) one year while living in a place which had fluoridated and chlorinated water. The following year, for the first time in my life, I lived in a place with water which was not fluoridated, and during that time my health was perfect. That water supply was chlorinated, though at the time I had no idea whether it was either fluoridated or chlorinated. After returning to the place which was both fluoridated and chlorinated, my health slowly deteriorated. Not long after finishing my university course in the physical sciences I spent several months in Europe, mostly in England, during which time I drank spring water. During that time my health dramatically improved, except that in the last couple of weeks I had some gastrointestinal issues and got a bad cold. I had no idea what the explanation for this may have been at the time, but have subsequently found research showing that the spring water brand I was drinking at the end of my time overseas was high in fluoride, whereas the brands I was drinking previously were low in fluoride. After returning to Australia, I drank water filtered with a carbon filter, which my housemates had bought. Carbon filters are effective for chlorine removal, but not fluoride removal, and drinking the filtered water did not stop my health from deteriorating again. One of the symptoms which returned was hives, which had first developed a few years before my trip to Europe. At that time I still didn’t know about the existence of water fluoridation, let alone its potential health effects. I also spent time in chlorinated swimming pools as a child and young adult, without noticing any associated symptoms, apart from stinging eyes.
Not only does the timing match fluoride sensitivity and skeletal fluorosis, not chlorine sensitivity, but so do the symptoms and health conditions, which are not restricted to what I have listed here. I would have to write an essay to detail all the connections between fluoride toxicity and my health. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s slightly embarrassing that I was so slow to recognise the dramatic impact that fluoride was having on my health over decades. I relied too much on doctors, who are not educated on fluoride sensitivity and therefore unlikely to recognise it, even if they are open-minded. It’s funny how the Parrot claims he knows more about my health than I do, or the doctors that I’ve seen do, based on nothing but his self-delusion or deliberate dishonesty.
I haven’t yet read what Declan has written, but I have seen that some activists have represented the Kuopio study in a way which could be misleading, which is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the fact is that far from disproving fluoride sensitivity, the study actually provides evidence for fluoride sensitivity. If the authors had been more honest, they would have acknowledged that in the abstract, instead of burying it the full text of the paper. If they had been more competent and honest, they would also have acknowledged that fluoride sensitivity had already been proven in independent, double-blind trials and case studies of far higher quality and ethical standards than their own study. It is also worth noting that since fluoride is a cumulative poison, the numbers in Kuopio suffering obvious symptoms from fluoride toxicity would have been larger if the town had been force-fluoridated for longer than it actually was.
The acute toxicities of fluoride and chlorine are similar, and the levels of fluoride and chlorine in fluoridated, chlorinated water are similar. However, fluoride is a cumulative poison, unlike chlorine. We know that rates of dental fluorosis, which is a toxic effect, are high in populations directly subjected to forced-fluoridation. We also know that once the permanent teeth have erupted, the risk of dental fluorosis has passed, but fluoride continues to accumulate in the body. We also know that there is a great deal of variability in individual susceptibility to any poison, and in individual fluoride exposure. Putting those facts together, the idea that forced-fluoridation does not cause any serious side-effects is highly fanciful.
The Parrot and his fellow forced-fluoridation freaks are trying to shine shit. They don’t have any credible evidence that the industrial waste product they are pushing is anything but harmful and useless. All they have is a big steaming pile of marketing.
August 2, 2014 at 19:57
Hi Dan,
I meant to reply to your post, which I posted above.
I like to add, that I’m sure that there are likely quite a few people (or many?) who are sensitive to the neurotoxin, many likely just don’t know it, or just can’t figure it out and connect the dots!
Philip Robertson for example, who works at Geelong as a qualified naturopath, is aware on the hypersensitivity to fluoride, which is pretty significant. He is an expert in this field, and certainly not that evil parrot!!
August 3, 2014 at 09:52
Philip is featured in this film: http://firewaterfilm.com/overview/
August 3, 2014 at 18:24
Thanks Danny. I know about Philip Robertson. Ironically, I previously lived in Melbourne and was considering moving to Geelong to escape forced-fluoridation. Then I heard that Geelong was also going to be force-fluoridated, which has since happened.
August 3, 2014 at 09:54
Ken – Double-blind randomized controlled trials should be able to detect real reactions, should they not? If so, I would like to see these done properly on a large scale to get to the bottom of this matter. It would be nice if the same governments promoting fluoridation would also fund such trials.
August 3, 2014 at 18:31
The studies which have already been done have already gotten to the bottom of the matter. Double-blind randomised controlled trials will only reveal anything useful if they are designed properly. If they are funded by governments which promote fluoridation it is likely they will be conducted by forced-fluoridation freaks, and just yet more examples of scientific fraud.
August 3, 2014 at 19:08
“The studies which have already been done have already gotten to the bottom of the matter.”
Well, then, list the citations and we can discuss your claim.
August 4, 2014 at 00:33
http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/hypersensitivity/
August 3, 2014 at 22:16
If so, more evidence of fraud, the better for us.