HOME SLOTT JOHNSON PERROTT BILLY BUDD
Paul Melters - Communication with Ken Perrott
Also see: Perrott - Mantella 1 Perrott - Mantella 2
On Nov. 18th, 2013 I came across a pro-fluoridation website maintained by someone in New Zealand named Ken Perrott. Apparently he is “Dr Ken Perrott PhD. Retd. AgResearch”.
On this particular webpage Perrott had publicly posted an email that had been sent to him privately. In one of the points, the writer had stated:
"The fact that you reference Slott shows clearly that your mental faculties need a bit of repair work. Slott would not recognise a rational argument if it jumped up and bit him!"
In his response Perrott defended Slott, saying:
"Apparently my use of links to information passed on by Steve Slott is ‘clear’ evidence my own mental facilities need repair! Well that is a very crude attempt to divert attention away from the information contained in those links, isn’t it? Steve appears to be a mine of information on this issue and I think many readers appreciate this."
Other commentators expressed similar sentiments, stating that they found Slott's "contributions helpful and enlightening", or that they "enjoyed learning from Steve's comments here".
Having had my own experience with Steve Slott in the last few months, I certainly had to agree with the original writer's assessment of Slott. Slott had done nothing but twist and distort the truth, and had knowingly misrepresented scientific facts. (See the examples)
I posted the following comment (see: SCREENSHOT):
Steve Slott is considered a "reliable source of fluoride information"?
Please don't make me laugh.
I have had numerous discussions with this man, on various blogs, in the last few months.
He has distorted and misrepresented facts on countless occasions, and exposed himself to be quite a fraud - to put it mildly.
The evidence is plentiful.
Readers are invited to have a look here:
More will be posted in the next few months.
Ken Perrott, being the moderator, “disallowed” the comment and responded: (SCREENSHOT):
Paul Melters, you are welcome to join the discussion here or to make relevant comments on the articles. However, I will not allow personal attacks on, abuse of or harassment of other commenters. Therefore I am moderating you (sic) comments and the current one well (sic) not be
This subject does seem to bring out the worst in commenters, trolls and spammers. So we have agreed to moderate the discussion quite strictly to prevent it becoming counter productive.
I look forward to future constructive comments.
On November 20th, I posted the following response (SCREENSHOT):
Interesting, Ken Perrott.
Let me see if I got this straight:
It's okay for YOU to publicly post a private email message (without permission) - in which the writer makes a derogatory remark concerning your main commenter - then to proceed and defend this commenter.
Likewise others, who agree with your point of view, are also allowed to post their comments regarding this commenter.
Then somebody else comes along and comments on the same subject/article, offering a link providing detailed evidence documenting that this commenter is indeed a fraud - in the very sense of the word (look it up), but then THAT comment is disallowed because YOU "will not allow personal attacks on, abuse of or harassment of other commenters".
Not exactly sure where I "abused, harassed and launched a personal attack"?
I called this man a fraud for distorting the truth and misrepresenting scientific facts and provided you with direct evidence supporting this claim.
Fraud = A false representation of a matter of fact.
If I am wrong with my evidence for the above statement, feel free to show it to me. The detailed discussions between Slott and myself are easily accessible, as are all supporting documents:
BTW - YOUR actions are okay?
Or the many derogatory, often foulmouthed, comments by your pro-fluoride friends, targeted at anti-fluoride commenters, are allowed?
That's quite a double standard you have going on here!
Seems more likely to me that you disallowed my comment because you did not want your main commenter to be exposed as a fraud spewing forth pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Am I surprised? Not really.
After having had just a brief glance at some of your posts, I can see that your knowledge of fluoride toxicity is extremely limited, but that you think you're an expert on the matter of fluorides/fluoridation - representing "true science".
I'm going to stay away from posting further until this "great debate" of yours has run its course, then will address your "science" on my own site, where you can also find this and the previous "disallowed" comment.
November 27, 2013
New evidence has emerged that Perrott is further manipulating/censoring the comment sections on his blog. Louise Mantella from Australia sent two PDFs showing this clearly - please click here .
November 28, 2013
The following comment was sent today to Ken Perrott:
COMMENT 47830 Paul Melters November 28, 2013 at 7:15 am PDF
Your comment is awaiting moderation
Well Ken Perrott,
Now you're turning out to be a fraud as well.
To remind you what that means -
Fraud = A false representation of a matter of fact
Mantella sent me two PDFs today, with all the posts and communication she had with you over the last few days.
It was amazing to see how you "disallowed" her comment where she defended herself from your accusation of "sloppy use of references", while you didn't even have - nor had read - the papers as you later stated. But by disallowing her comment you could also pretend later that you were oh-so-confused about her request for a reference for your "deficiency causing lower solubility claim". Then you stooped so low as to accuse her of being confused and not clear, all the while deflecting from her evidence with your silly statements about apatite.
The only reason you did not allow her comment: she just made a fool out of you.
You did not moderate when the familiar Strawman arguments started to arrive, accusing her of "quote mining" and such, shifting attention away from her quality posts. That kind of nonsense is always better than to address the actual evidence presented, isn't it? (Nothing wrong with fool Cedric's "trolling video" right?) And yes, it is okay to post hundreds of the same quotes, over and over, when your name is Slott or Budd. Really? Come on, now.
Meanwhile it was quite evident that Mantella had the original papers, as she quoted entire passages, and mentioned factors she could have known only by reading the 'methods and materials' sections.
But that didn't matter much. Familiar members of your legion of minions - who would not know how to evaluate a scientific study if their life dependent (sic) on it ("just quote the conclusions" - really?!?) - were allowed to insult, accuse, and bully without a single shred of evidence that she misquoted anything.
Quite the fair moderator you are! Oh - and ever-so-concerned about science, of course.
I've spent many years dealing with fluoride-poisoned people. Believe it or not - I've seen dentists hand out free fluoride toothpaste in villages in Rajasthan where every single child was already crippled from poisoned wells. Way to go guys! You KNOW what's best! That same profession is in charge of formulating public health policy on fluoride! Unbelievable - but true.
I get very sick and tired of so called "scientists" like you who think they can write and judge about fluoride risks and benefits because they know a thing or two about apatite or have a PhD behind their name, but know nothing about fluoride toxicity/toxicology. Or "dental experts" like Slott, Johnson, or Billy Budd who don't even know the difference between concentration and dose, but who manage to post on blogs around the world, spreading mis-information, and trying to influence public policy.
Sorry if you find my language offending. I'm not into mincing words. This whole issue has become ridiculous. You, naturally, did not allow my comments about Slott - although every little fact is backed by "science". I can see from Mantella's PDF that you actually went out of your way so that no-one could access it on your blog. After all, this is your main man.
Your comments of the "dental fluorosis causing caries" issue were very telling. Claiming that it related to "severe cases" when it was clearly stated that it referred to very mild and mild cases. You have no intent at all to address this honestly, do you? Mantella sure was right to pull the plug.
Cadmium produces the EXACT same enamel defects as fluoride. Would you EVER consider that a "cosmetic concern" only? Would you EVER advocate the use of cadmium in toothpaste, or in salt, or in water - even if it did have some effect on caries (which it doesn't)?
Of course not. Because you know the effects on the other parts of the body.
But fluoride is the "sacred cow" of dentistry: There are no adverse effects...Yes, we know that there are hundreds of studies from the last 20 years showing that fluoride affects thyroid hormone metabolism...but that knowledge doesn't apply here, as those are Chinese (or Indian, Turkish, Iranian etc - take your pick here) children...levels must have been astronomical in those countries/studies (not)...obscure journals of course (not)...no, we didn't really look at that here and can't name you one study that did, but let me tell you - the dentists at the CDC Oral Health Division say it is good and that fluoride is an essential element (no evidence exists).
But - let's just trust those dental experts, shall we? What nonsense.
You all claim to do this for the poor children.
Shame on you.
So that truth may prevail, I've arranged to have all the comments - thanks to Mantella's PDFs - including the "disallowed ones", posted on the website.
On November 28, one hour later - Ken Perrott posted the following comment:
COMMENT 47833 Ken November 28, 2013 at 8:11 am
Bill Osmunson’s comment prompts me to raise some housekeeping issues related to moderation.
1: There will be some inevitable name calling and anger - it is an emotional issue. I am trying to discourage this but will only hold a comment back if it is very bad or it does not contain anything relevant to the issues being discussed. (Technically Bill Osmunson’s, your comment is like that). Also, I will hold comments back which are personal attacks.
2: Leave the moderation to me - continual bitching because you feel the ”other side” is overstepping some line is not going to help.
3: There are people who are attempting to divert the discussion with personal vendettas and claims. I won’t let their comments through. But one of these, Paul Melters. Has provided a place where he is gathering comments from similarly mixed people to establish a case against me! If that sort of scandal attracts you have a look at his website: http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/.
4: No, please don’t then come back and attempt to discuss or promote Melters’s website and charges here - that would be a diversion. You could attempt to to discuss it on his web pages (good luck with that - he doesn’t provide for any discussion - a bit ironic).
5: The best way of preventing sabotage of the discussion is simply to continue the discussion of the science and/or ethics and other points raised in the articles. Ignore the provocations.
November 28, 2:14
Paul Melters Comment: Interesting how Mr. “please provide direct link to the paper” Perrott has strategically not provided a link to the page involving him, as was supplied in the post. He instead provided a link to the HTML hierachy. And please - no discussions on this matter - let us “continue on the discussion of the science and/or ethics” - no diversions! What a guy!