Legal Scholar who called for fluoridations cessation was criticized by an avid fluoridationist, Daniel Ryan of the NZ pro-fluoridation group Making Sense of Fluoride, (and I believe hes associated with NZs Ken Perrott) and this is her reply to him fb.me/1PM3aAQdh Im shocked this guy is making her response public as it totally discredits him personally and demolishes his arguments which gives you some insight into these avid fluoridationists mental health They seem to have a clear need to be seen as important - just to get a letter back - even if it excoriates him, seems to feed his ego. Of course he spun the letter with one bone she threw him - that instead of linking to FAN, she may revise it to link to the primary literature that was conveniently listed together on FANs website. So hes got that to brag about and brag he does. He must feel very important today. And he has provided us with more damning fluoridation information. He publicized the letter in his twitter feed MSoF @MSoFluoride 8h Associate Professor Rita Barnett-Rose replied back to my critique on her paper Compulsory water fluoridation:... fb.me/1PM3aAQdh Excerpts from the four page Barnett-Rose (Legal Scholar) letter Incidentally, as someone who did not have a pony in this race before doing the actual research (i.e., I am not a long-time anti-fluoridation advocate), it does not take long to discover how politically motivated many “public health agencies” and “professional dental associations” are -- or how willing they are to obscure, minimize, or bury contrary evidence or to marginalize the anti-fluoridation messengers, regardless of the evidence or the credentials of those messengers (e.g., Waldbott, Taylor, Marcus, Mullenix, Bassin, Hirzy). I have no desire to engage with insincere zealots, so I hope that you simply made a mistake there. As I said to you privately, I am more than willing to revise my article where I have misstated any of the cited scientific evidence. However, I disagree with you that a discussion on the legal and ethical aspects of CWF would be “confusing” or “pointless” at this point and I would genuinely be interested in knowing why you feel so strongly that imposing this practice on everyone is ethically justifiable. Data published by the WHO suggests that the decline in dental caries is similar in both fluoridated and unfluoridated countries, and I have heard of no massive outbreak of a worldwide dental carie epidemic that has been attributed to a lack of fluoridated water (rather than to poverty, poor nutrition, or a lack of access to proper dental care). Thus, I am very curious as to why there appears to be such an aggressive campaign on the pro-fluoridation side to impose this practice on the world – and why anyone believes that personal liberties and rights to bodily integrity should be sacrificed for a public health practice addressing a non-contagious disease. I would also be interested in understanding where you personally believe compulsory public health practices should begin and end (e.g., do you believe governments should mandate compulsory flu shots? What about the HPV vaccine that the Governor of Texas tried to mandate for girls? Where should the personal right to bodily integrity begin and end, in your opinion? And how comfortable are you with public health officials mandating what is good for you? Do you contend that they haven’t been wrong on a public health issue before?). As for me, I remain convinced that CWF is legally and ethically unjustifiable. Daniel, I thank you for your (heretofore) civilized exchange with me and I do welcome your thoughts if you have any on the legal and ethical justifications of CWF. After this exchange, however, I am only interested in a private discussion with you, which is something you may not be interested in as it may not advance your organization’s agenda. However, your facebook posting has generated some contact to me by a few rude (and seemingly unbalanced) pro-fluoridation folks, and I have no interest in entertaining their rants (which certainly do nothing but convince me that the pro-fluoridation side has something to hide). In any event, I do thank you for reaching out and for your interest in my article. I hope to ensure that my final draft will address any legitimate criticisms/issues. -- Daniel Ryans 9 page diatribe the led to Barnett-Roses reply. I wont read it msof.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/Compulsory-Water-Fluoridation-A-Response-to-Rita-Barnett-Rose.pdf
Posted on: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:13:26 +0000