Ken Parrot says:
“Yes, actually this quote is out of context: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.” I would have liked to know what specific work he [John Doull] was referring to regarding thyroid changes. This was the reason for my query about sources. Simple scientific curiosity. I am not accusing Fagin of being malicious – only you guys.”
Well, Ken, if you had read the report, which John Doull chaired, then you would know the work he was referring to. For example, in this report, Doull’s committee stated:
“The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States” (Ch. 10, p. 267).
Doull wasn’t the only panelist to express concern in respect to fluoride’s potential negative impact on the endocrine system:
“Fluoride appears to have an anti-thyroid effect, or produce hypothyroid effects, in some individuals — meaning that it causes the overall thyroid function to be less than it should. There are several possibilities for it” (Thiessen 2006).
Thiessen has explained her concerns in more detail here. And Ken, if that is still not enough for you, we can recommend plenty of further reading, which of course you’ll never bother to do (for obvious reasons).
afamildura.wordpress.com 
November 18, 2016 at 10:55
Bill, you appear to be offering me the chance for a presentation at a FAN conference. If this is serious will FAN cover my fares and accommodation?
I am definitely interested.
November 18, 2016 at 15:15
Would you agree to have your presentation video recorded, and uploaded to YouTube for the public to see?
November 18, 2016 at 16:33
Such details are decided by conference organisers.
Direct your question at Bill – I somehow do not think he is serious with this offer.
November 21, 2016 at 08:13
I thought we were getting somewhere, Bill, but you have gone silent.
Are you willing to participate in a good faith scientific discussion on my blog along the lines of the one I had with Paul Connett?
November 17, 2016 at 10:10
Simple questions for you Ken.
1. What is the range of tooth fluoride concentration which shows the best benefit, fewest caries? Optimal tooth fluoride concentration? That is the most basic question which can be asked. Oh. . . right. . . I’ve asked it before and you evade and avoid the most basic scientific concept.
2. What is the optimal serum fluoride concentration needed to achieve the optimal tooth fluoride concentration?
3. What is the optimal fluoride dosage (exposure) required to achieve the optimal serum fluoride concentration?
Please provide the research for each stage of life.
The last debate I was in, the Harvard University Professor argued that the public needed faith and trust in authority. He was unable to provide science on the benefit and safety. He simply wanted people to trust “authority”. Trust and faith are the best scientific evidence Harvard University has to support fluoridation.
His comment to me afterwards was, “Your daughter must be ashamed of what you are doing.” His best case is faith and shame.
However, Ken, unless you are willing to listen. . . doesn’t mean you have to agree, but be able to weigh the evidence or lack of evidence.
Now I’m going to spend time with my family, because writing to a brick wall is a waste of time.
Bill
November 12, 2016 at 14:14
AFA Mildura, on a positive note, in the grand scheme of things, these crooks won’t get away with it, they won’t be able to.
I’m sure, that they think that they will escape accountability, boy will they be in for a rude awakening!
We are accountable for what we do while on earth. Too many people, at the moment, wilfully do things to hurt others, believing they will never be accountable to anyone.
If they are knowingly & intentionally doing their dirty work for the love of money etc; woe to them!
I like this quote:
“No-one gets away with it, not one!”
~Victor Zammit
November 12, 2016 at 14:27
Now, you emailed me to come here and respond to Bill’s comments (I don’t normally see them). I did so – he ran away and you made childish comments on my name.
I invited you to substitute for Bill and respond to my comment.
You avoid it with a diversion.
What is the point of specifically sending me an email request?
November 9, 2016 at 08:55
Ken,
I’m glad you are continuing to look at the research on benefits/risks of fluoride ingestion. Took me decades to reverse my opinion.
May I suggest a common problem for everyone is accepting lower quality research supporting my “practice principles” and requiring higher quality research to “prove me wrong.”
We do not have high quality research on either safety or efficacy of fluoride ingestion, especially synergistic effects, host sensitivity (DNA, physiologic, genetic, immune strength, kidney function, etc) dosage, and much more.
For example, you may have seen this research in the Society of Toxicology 2015. “Modifying Effect of COMT Gene Polymorphism and a Predictive Role for Proteomics Analysis in Children’s Intelligence in Endemic Fluorosis Area in Tianjin, China.”
Zhang (2015) reports that some people with certain genetic variations (SNPs or single nucleotide polymorphisms) had a greater reduction in IQ than people without those variations. It is my understanding that SNPs are not the same as genetic diseases. Some SNPs can be common, with 10, 20 or more percent of the population having a particular SNP. Zhang (2015) reported that people with two “fluoride susceptibility” SNPs ( in this case “Val” and Met” variants) had lower IQ than those with a single SNP.
For all the subjects, there was a very strong negative relationship: the higher the serum or urine F level, the lower the IQ. Subjects with the highest serum or urine F had IQs that averaged about 12 points less than those with the lowest F levels. See Zhang (2015) Figure 1
For people with no copy of the “val” “susceptibility SNP” the decrease in IQ averaged only about 1.45 points per 1.0 mg/L increase in urine F, a small and difficult to detect decrease in IQ. But for people with two “val”s the average decrease in IQ was 9.67 points per 1.0 mg/L increase in urine F. These people were therefore 650% more sensitive than the people with two “met”s. People with one each “val” and “met” had an intermediate decrease in IQ of 4.67 points per 1.0 mg/L increase in urine F. All of this is shown in Table 3 of the paper.
Urine fluoride concentrations were higher than US children with similar water fluoride concentrations. Either they drank more water or had another source of fluoride.
If the dose-response relationship found in this study is extrapolated to 0.0 mg/L, for someone with the val/val genotype, they loose about 10 IQ points per 1.0 mg/L increase in urine F. Therefore, such a person drinking 0.1 mg/L water might be predicted to loose 1 IQ point compared to if they were drinking water with 0.0 mg/L F. Current HHS recommendation of (0.7 mg/L F) compared to drinking low F water with 0.1 mg/L is about 6 points lost.
Ken, research is getting more specific and confident with mechanisms on why some individuals are at higher risk than others for excess fluoride exposure.
November 9, 2016 at 12:19
Thanks Bill. Most appreciated. Have shared your comment on Facebook.
November 8, 2016 at 21:01
Typically childish to make fun of someone’s name.
Yes, I am familiar with the NRC report but, as I said, I would have liked to know what SPECIFIC work Doull was referring to (the committee did not outline n anything of concern to their ultimate decision [for which they were tasked] apart from fluorosis).
Yes, all chapters referred to the need for more research – a typical scientific position (not only to ensure we have jobs but because scientific knowledge is never complete).
But, it is in the nature of the anti-fluoridationist dishonesty to misinterpret the statement ion the need for further research as “evidence” of a negative health effect. They do this all the time – but the NRC committee did not.
November 9, 2016 at 05:47
We look forward to your advocacy of this continuing research into the potential negative effects of fluoride, and less of your blind support for the practice.
November 11, 2016 at 06:05
Ken, Please read carefully. Scientific judgment –Incomplete evidence.
Is fluoride ingestion determined safe before evidence is complete? Or do we require evidence of safety before determination?
My Public Health Profession is not a “scientific research” profession, but more of a “marketing” “educating” profession. Do not go to the Public Health experts to have them determine, evaluate, and understand scientific research on efficacy or safety of anything. They are policy promoters, educators, marketers. Public Health and dental experts are seldom toxicologist, pharmacists, etc.
Proponents require “a high level of evidence reporting harm and lack of efficacy to change their position.” For example, continue fluoridation until proof of lack of efficacy and harm is absolute.. . and someone else must provide the proof.
In contrast, the US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research clarified early on, requiring the regulators to come up with scientific evidence is too costly and not reasonable. Therefore, the law requires manufacturers provide adequate evidence of effectiveness at a specific dosage, safety at that dosage, and label for risks BEFORE marketing. The FDA CDER has the experts to evaluate the science.
I agree with the US FDA CDER (and all regulatory agencies world wide who regulate substances used with the intent to prevent or treat disease in humans and animals) that those making the money on the product (manufacturer) be required to provide the evidence of efficacy, safety, dosage and label, for substances used with the intent to prevent disease, not the patient or public, prior to marketing.
In effect, the FDA CDER says “no” until evidence is strong enough.
With fluoride the FDA CDER has determined fluoride is a drug and “Do Not Swallow.” FDA CDER has repeatedly said the evidence of effectiveness for ingestion is incomplete. Topical has approval because the evidence has reached FDA CDER’s required standards. The ingestion of fluoride has not met their required standards.
Why don’t promoters of fluoride ingestion gain FDA CDER approval? They have tried and the FDA CDER has rejected approval because the scientific evidence is incomplete.
Who is required to provide the adequate research? Manufacturers before marketing. Not the public. You agree the NRC report said more research is need. There will always be need for more research, but the first step is to get enough evidence to pass the muster of those charged by law to evaluate the science and determine there is enough evidence.
Mass manufacturing and distribution without approval by the best scientists is premature.
I agree with you that a lack of evidence does not prove harm. Certainly, individual choice, freedom of choice should be protected if the best scientists say the evidence is incomplete.
If the research for fluoride ingestion is of high enough quality to be safe and effective for everyone, simply gain FDA CDER approval by providing the FDA CDER with the evidence. Until then, we should be able to agree the evidence is incomplete.
Still waiting for a response to Zhang (2015) above.
November 11, 2016 at 12:18
Bill, don’t know why but I don’t get informed of your contributions here. Perhaps if you need to discuss something specifically with me you should comment on my blog.
You suggest that common problems are reliance on incomplete evidence or poor quality work. Well, of course, that is the case – and it is a chronic problem with anti-fluoridationists who always cherry-pick individual studies, misrepresent the research and often combine these two sins. They never approach the scientific literature honestly, critically or intelligently.
I have discussed a specific example in the article here https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/connett-misrepresents-the-fluoride-and-iq-data-yet-again/ . It takes issue with your boss Paul Connett for misrepresenting and distorting data from Xiang.
For example, Connett relies strongly on the statistically significant relationship of IQ to urinary fluoride. It is displayed in this graph – which Connett loves to reporduce from a p;aper of Xiang’s:
https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/xiang-2003.jpg?w=563&h=725
Now if you have a look at this, and you are being objective, you will see that while the relationship is significant it is very weak. In fact, the statistical relationship is given by Xiang and indicates that fluoride can explain only 3% of the variance in IQ. Yet Connett is presenting that as some sort of proof.
The objective observer will probably note that if other confounders are included the relationship with urinary fluoride would become non-significant.
I did a similar analysis of Malin and Till’s ADHD paper which suffers from the same problems of ignoring important confounders. When important confounders are included their relationship between ADHD and water fluoridation disappears. See https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/adhd-linked-to-elevation-not-fluoridation/ and https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/adhd-link-to-fluoridation-claim-undermined-again/
Yet you guys keep using these papers – you cherry pick them and have never critically analysed them.
While I have your attention can you explain why your boss Paul Connett refuses to correspond with me? Why he avoids responding to my articles where I specifically discuss his misrepresentations of the science? Why he even has refused to respond to my open letter to him where I offered him space for a right of reply?
See https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/misrepresenting-fluoride-science-an-open-letter-to-paul-connett/
November 12, 2016 at 14:47
Ken, You asked why Paul Connett had not responded to you. I can’t speak for him. As for me, I am slow to respond because your listening skills have never been developed. Your selective listening is primitive and I’m not interested in going in the gutter and having a pissing match with you. My choice because I don’t want to become like that. I was hoping we could share and listen to each other, but that is not in your skill set. Bill
November 12, 2016 at 15:40
OK, you can’t speak for Paul – but you can surely ask him, can’t you?
Why avoid that issue. He is someone who keeps claiming no one will debate him yet he refuses to enter into a good faith scientific discussion. The obvious conclusion is that he wants to continue to misrepresent the science. He is not interested in the truth.
It is also telling that you consider good faiths scientific discussion a “pissing competition.”
I raised important issues about the way the science is being misrepresented on IQ and ADHD – do you not have a response to that? Does you inability to respond mean that you really think I am right?
November 17, 2016 at 05:38
Ken, You asked why Paul Connett had not responded to you. I can’t speak for him and have not talked to him about you. As for me, I am slow to respond because your listening skills have never been developed. Your selective listening is primitive and I’m not interested in going in the gutter and having a pissing match with you. My choice because I don’t want to become like that. I was hoping we could share and listen to each other, but that is not in your skill set. In fact, you don’t even hear yourself. You are so intense to defend fluoridation, even when your statistics point out that fluoridation may contribute to harm for some, you will not acknowledge your own data. So both listening and judgment do not appear possible for you. Bill
November 17, 2016 at 06:09
Bill, you have chosen not to repsond regarding Connett’s misrepresentaion of Xiang’s work and the general misrepresemtatyion of Malin and Till’s work by anti-flupoide propagandists because you cannot justify your position. In neither case is there a real relationship with fluoride (and fluldiation) – that is the fact which you are running away from.
You are not interested in a good faith scientific discussion. Nor is Paul.
November 17, 2016 at 07:05
Ken, you admit the research show harm. End of discussion. Now we are discussing the degree of harm. Do I sometimes misrepresent some of the hundreds of studies on fluoridation? Not intentionally. Show me measured evidence of cost benefit, not estimates based on assumptions. Post one prospective randomized controlled trial of fluoridation’s benefit. Quality research is the job of manufacturers prior to marketing. Manufacturers will not even provide toxicological evaluations. Many are ingesting too much fluoride as seen with more than 90% dental fluorosis in one fluoridated community (NIHNS). Benefits are exaggerated. Risks are ignored, discounted, and adequately studied. Freedom of choice is trashed. Fluoridation is one of public health’s greatest blunders . . . and I was part of the blunder for many years . . . until I read both sides of the literature and laws. Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
November 17, 2016 at 08:28
Bill – we have been there before. Discussed the question of randomized controlled trials, I have referred you to the Cohrane comments on this. The fact that no one has ever seriously proposed or carried out such a trial for fludoriated or chlorinated water surely underlines those comments.
Now, I suppose I must assume yoru attempt to ingore my comments on Paul’s misrepresentation of Xiang’s figure (showing only 3% of variance in IQ explained by fluoride – an amount which woiuld most probably disappear when confounders are incluuded in the statistical analysis) and on the problems of Malin and Till’s paper (similar problem) must mean you accept my criticisms.
If not – why do you refuse to discuss these issues?
Now, I am genuinely interested a proper good faith scientific discussion of the issus you raise. I am prepared to offer you equal space on my bog for that discussion -along the same lines I offered Paul.
Are you prepared to enter into that scientific discussion?
November 11, 2016 at 18:11
Bill, perhaps you would like to comment on the childish distortion of the names of commenters here?
Do you think this is at all acceptable in a good faith scientific discussion?
November 12, 2016 at 13:07
Ken, stop bitching and whining about name-calling. Stick to the discussion. Heaps of people call you “The Parrot”. Get over it! You Parrot for the fluoridation lobby so much, is it any wonder why people have come up with this nickname? It’s a light-hearted joke. Relax.
November 12, 2016 at 13:28
Seems to upset you that I have asked Bill’s opinion of your childish behaviour. 🙂
Mind you, I don’t think he will answer – he seems to have run away.
November 12, 2016 at 13:32
Oh Ken, it takes a lot more than that to upset me. I’ve been fighting against you pro-fluoridation crooks since 2008. My skin is much thicker than you may think, my son 😉
November 12, 2016 at 14:10
Well, why not take advantage of Bill’s running away to continue your “fight.” Have a go at responding to the points I made to Bill. Surely that is far more sensible that calling people names – that is just an admission of weakness. 🙂
November 17, 2016 at 09:44
Ken, you do not want to discuss science. If you did, then you would be balanced. For example, you said above:
“You suggest that common problems are reliance on incomplete evidence or poor quality work. Well, of course, that is the case – and it is a chronic problem with anti-fluoridationists who always cherry-pick individual studies, misrepresent the research and often combine these two sins. They never approach the scientific literature honestly, critically or intelligently.”
Are you implying that promoters of fluoride ingestion are always honest, intelligent, and never misrepresent the research? The worst junk science I’ve seen is from those recommending forced medication. But you suggest that those wanting freedom from forced medication “always. . . ”
The terms “always” and “never” are the most unscientific terms which can be used.
Read your own posts, Ken. Why should anyone spend their time when you don’t even understand your own posts.
Either you are pathologically dishonest or honestly have no clue about science, toxicology, research, ethics, laws, or epidemiology.
Unless you can write in professional terms, listen to what others say, show reasonable judgment, then it is a waste of your time and mine to communicate.
November 17, 2016 at 20:44
Bill, I do want to discuss the science. That is why I have offered yoiu equal space on my blog for a good faith scientific discussion.
Such a discussion will be a lot more piblic than the exchanges in the comments section here. I believe the discussion with Paul Connett worked well. We were both able to present our arguments, provide evidence and citations. We were both able to reply to each others points.
yesd, of ocurse I can wrtie in professional terms – just echeck oyut my poublications. Yes, I do litsetyn tio what epiopkle say – and in suich an exchange listeningh is iumportant so that each pint ghets properly critqued. Yes, I bleive I have good judgement – but let’s elave that up tyo the readers tio decide.
Finally, I do not think such an exchange will be a waste of tuime. Especially as we have shortly to consider new fluoridation legilsation in the New Zealand parliament and public discussion of these issues at a national level will be more topical.
So what about it? Are you upo for a good faith scientific discussion?
November 18, 2016 at 07:32
Ken, If you are willing to listen, consider constructive observations: When a discussion is public, there is a tendency to “defend a specific position and bias.” Learning, education, discovery, changing a perspective is not conducive in a war. You don’t listen. I don’t sense you want science, rather you want publicity. Your blog is what you want because you want publicity, not candid science review. I sense you want a fight, not a discovery. It appears you want to rip, trash and dissect people, rather than dissect the evidence, the science. When ego and self worth are on the line, the inner soul requires consistency with beliefs rather than true to the evidence. I have posted studies and evidence and you ignore the “inconvenient” evidence. . . or at least I don’t find your responses. There is weak evidence on both sides and you attack the weak evidence on one side and refuse to acknowledge the weak evidence on the other. I do not hear your response for the person/agency who is responsible for ensuring safety, dosage, label and efficacy. Who is it Ken? You appear to support everyone loosing their freedom of choice, when an alternative method of fluoride delivery is cheaper and easier. You want police powers to ensure compliance, (force everyone to your beliefs even though there is not good quality evidence) but you refuse to say who is charged with reviewing the science and ensuring dosage, label, safety, efficacy is appropriate for every person regardless of other sources of fluoride, the patients health, or genetics? I assume you expect my public health profession to review the science and weigh the evidence, but that is not what the public health professionals are charged to do. In my public health program, we are taught and charged to obey authority and promote what we are told to promote and review of science is not part of public health purview. I don’t sense or hear you demanding high quality science. Sliding with poor science seems to be acceptable for you. I don’t hear you consider nature. I don’t hear you consider laws. Where is your consideration of toxicology? I do not hear you review, consider, or have a global consideration, weight of evidence, but rather a fierce protection of fluoridation at all costs of logic or ethics or science or laws. You will talk about the strengths of fluoridation and ignore weakness. That is called cherry picking. Over 90% of some areas in the USA have dental fluorosis ranging from questionable to severe. What percentage of the population do you find acceptable to show signs of excess fluoride ingestion? Along with my other questions, you refuse to answer and cherry pick your points. I don’t want to waste my time on a war. Education and learning are my goals, not war. I’ll let Trump and you do that. Bill
November 18, 2016 at 08:41
Bill, a simple yes or no answer is all that is required.
I am getting the impression your answer is no – I just wish you would be spoecific. After all, scientific commenters on this issue keep getting told by the likes of you, Paul and many others that no one will debate you. I want your answer to be clear because I do not want to be accused of refusing this discussion
By the way – a good faith discusion does involve listenig gand considering constructive observations.
November 18, 2016 at 10:29
Ken, you still refuse to answer. I’m most willing to have a good faith scientific discussion, but you are not. I am sure we will have another FAN conference and perhaps I could have you provide a presentation and discussion at the conference. Would you be interested? Bill
November 18, 2016 at 10:53
Bill, I have already made clear I am all for a good faith scientific discussion.
You say you are most willing to as well.
Progress.
Now I have specifically offered for this to take place on my blog – along the same lines as the ones I had with Paul.
Are you happy with this?