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.