HOME       SLOTT     JOHNSON     PERROTT    BILLY BUDD

Perrott - Melters - Mantella - Slott

(Thanks to Louise Mantella for her PDFs, and for showing me how to make PDFs instead of screenshots.)

Melters PDF   Mantella PDF

The “disallowed comments” are marked red

Fluoride debate - I get email

 November 8, 2013 8 Comments

From time to time I get personal email from readers who are upset by articles. I don’t know why they bother - surely it would be more effective to put their arguments in the comments section which are - read by others and have more effect. I am certainly not going to get into one-to-one discussions with such correspondents.

As you might expect, emails from irate opponents of fluoridation are not a novelty. However, this one I received today from Bill illustrates some illusions about the debate that need correcting.

Dear Ken,
Paul has a PhD in chemistry but you appear to think he has just been released from a home for mentally disturbed people. 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! I have met Paul a few times in the last couple of decades and have no doubts about his rationality. No doubt, from your perspective, that makes my mental apparatus a wee bit suspect by your standards. The longer you carry on this very lop sided discussion with your doubtful arguments, the more anti-fluoride people will disregard your types of arguments.
Read the evidence! There is plenty of it and the scientific literature does not support your position.
Best Wishes
Bill

1:  Why this obsession with mental issues? No, I do not think Paul “has just been released from a home for mentally disturbed people.”  Whatever gave you that idea? I certainly wouldn’t be participating in a public exchange with someone I thought has such mental issues. And you are the one raising questions about your own “mental apparatus”not me.

2: 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, isnt it? Steve appears to be a mine of information on this issue and I think many readers appreciate this.

3: Paul’s PhD in chemistry is of course relevant to our exchange. So is my PhD in chemistry. We do in fact have similar academic qualifications and research background. We are both since retired. Consequently this is an exchange between equals - at least in an approximate sense.

4:Yes there is plenty of scientific literature on this subject and plenty of evidence to consider. You may have noticed that in fact we are referring to this literature and evidence.

5: You claim the literature does not supports my position. Well you are entitled to your view but it would be nice of you to back it up with some sort of evidence. What about you contributing to the ongoing discussion with some comments where you can lay out your arguments with the supporting evidence? Like other people here are doing. It is proving to be a very worthwhile exercise and I am certainly learning from many of the comments.

Bill, you seem to want us to stop this exchange of views and information on the fluoridation issue. I can assure you I see no reason to stop. I enjoy these sort of exchanges and I think the information coming out of it could be useful to others.

COMMENT 47704   Ken   November 10, 2013 at 1:44 pm  |

This letter writer appears to want to continue this disussion with me by private email.

I don’t do that - so I have just included his email here as a comment. I urge him to cease the private emails and continue his discussion here:


Dear Ken,
Thank you for your few points of response to my email. I will postpone my response to these until I have got a few things off my chest. I looked you up on the internet and found that you were described as a chemist, a dental surgeon and a retired person from Agresearch Hamilton. You claimed that you were a PhD in chemistry and were now retired. Since you were listed among other medical and dental people in the list of people who objected to the stopping of fluoridation in Hamilton, I assume that you had been a dental surgeon “ you will no doubt correct me if I am wrong though the Agresearch reference implies that I am! If I am right, then you cannot claim approximation of qualifications to Paul Connett since all his adult life, having obtained a PhD in chemistry, he taught at a New York university until his retirement. Perhaps you will enlighten us as to your experience that allows you to claim that you are an expert on fluoride? I will only quote one factual example that destroys the pro-fluoride arguments. All the American toothpaste packaging contains a warning to contact a poison center (note the American spelling) if the contents are swallowed. If you do not believe that warning, you may well believe that it is not the fluoride that is considered dangerous.
Now to your points. I will ignore your point one. In point two, you again claim that Slott knows what he is talking about. I doubt that your assertion that Slott is a mine of information which many readers appreciate is true. I have already covered point three and await your response. Yes “ Paul had covered point four adequately. I am doubtful about your contribution. I have not done as you suggested in point five because I wanted to contact you not everyone on the internet. Though, while checking your credentials, I found your response to Connett on the internet. For thirty years I have studied the fluoride arguments. I was president of the Pure Water Association for a time and have every copy of the Fluoride journal since its inception. John Colquhoun was a good friend of mine until his untimely death. In his sixties, he obtained a PhD on fluoridation.
It is clear that during world war two, the fluoride arguments were raised because of the Manhattan project. This was understandable because such misinformation is common in wartime. The tragedy is that the dental people in the USA took the subject up and, to this day, are still pursuing it, when most of the remainder of the world has either stopped the practice or never started.

 

Best Wishes

Bill Wilson

Comment 47007 Richard Christie  November 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm

I’ve found Steven Slott’s contributions helpful and enlightening.

COMMENT 47034 alison  November 11, 2013 at 10:03 am  |

Goodness me! So, it’s implied that Steven Slott is not a reliable source, that research & teaching at a uni somehow trumps research & teaching at a CRI (although your correspondent may not realise that CRI staff
may, for example, be co-supervisors of higher-degree students), and that teh ebil (sic) nuclear industry is somehow involved.

Like Richard, I’ve enjoyed learning from Steven’s comments here.

COMMENT 47024 Marcus November 15, 2013 at 7:43 pm  |

Bill wrote: “ All the American toothpaste packaging contains a warning to contact a poison center (note the American spelling) if the contents are swallowed. If you do not believe that warning, you may well believe that it is not the fluoride that is considered dangerous.”

Bill, you may find that there are similar warning texts on boxes of vitamin pills. Even chemical compunds we need to live, such as many vitamins, can be dangerous in large amounts. Toothpaste contains roughly 1000 times more fluoride than tap water in the U.S., and it also contains other chemicals that are not meant to be swallowed.

COMMENT 47406 Cedric Katesby November 15, 2013 at 8:00 pm  |

Now to your points. I will ignore your point one.(...)I have already covered point three and await your response. Yes - Paul had covered point four adequately. I am doubtful about your contribution. I have not done as you suggested in point five...

Comedy that writes itself.
Communication with Bill seems...pointless.
(Bada-dum-ting)
Thank you, thank you. I’m here all week. Don’t forget to tip your waitress.

COMMENT 47408 Ken  November 15, 2013 at 8:20 pm

As you say Cedric - pointless. But I am afraid Bill is a bit of a stalker as he still sends me emails. Must look into how I can block him.

(ED NOTE: In a private communication, 82 year-old Bill, an outstanding citizen with a very bright mind, could not recall sending any more emails to Mr. Perrott). If he did, Perrott certainly didn’t post them, as he should have done.)

COMMENT 47411 Cedric Katesby  November 15, 2013 at 9:41 pm  

Oh.
Creepy. Very creepy.

COMMENT 47502 Paul Melters November 18, 2013 at 9:39 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation

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:

http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/

More will be posted in the next few months.

Paul

COMMENT 47503 Ken November 18, 2013 at 9:47 pm

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 comments and the current one well not be allowed.

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.

COMMENT 47526 Paul Melters November 20, 2013 at 9:07 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation

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".

I see.

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:

http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/

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".

Hilarious.

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.

http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/ken_perrott.html

Paul

===================================================================

Continued under Comment Section “2nd response from Connett”

COMMENT 47633 Louise Mantella November 24, 2013 at 6;24 pm |

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Dear Ken,

If you can point to me using that comment moderation in an unfair way then provide the evidence.

You’ve been censoring comments by Paul Melters. These comments were made in defense of Bill Wilson whose private email you posted without permission.

Here is the evidence:

http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/ken_perrott.html

The personal attacks of Slott on Connett get really tiring.

The science presented by Melters seems impeccable.

L

COMMENT 47634 Ken November 24, 2013 at 6:34 pm

Yes, Louise Mantella, I have imposed moderation on Paul Melters because of his personal attacks on other commenters (and now me). That just means they don’t get approved - there is no censorship in the sense of deleting or modifying.

Bill Wilson was told that I do not get into personal email exchanges - he was commenting on a post and his comment logically should have gone there. I have urged him to make his comments in the normal way. This seems to be the only way of trying to encourage stalkers to comment normally.

If, as you assert, Melter’s science is “impeccable” then I suggest you encourage him to comment here in the normal way about the science and stop attacking other commenters. I will happily approve civil comments like that.

COMMENT 47635 Steve Slott  November 24, 2013 at 7:21 pm

Louise

If you will notice, my comments about Connett are not personal attacks. They are statements of fact in regard to his qualifications and the information he provides. When anyone presents themselves as being an authority on anything, as Paul does with fluoride, it is completely fair to raise questions about his qualifications and claims. The fact that he, as he has done in the past and continues to do, gets offended and defensive when questions are raised about his qualifications and the validity of his book is, to me, very telling about the lack of confidence he has in his position and in his book. Others are certainly entitled to their opinion, as well, but any legitimate authority on any subject should be fully prepared to have his qualifications and claims questioned, and have the confidence in himself, his opinions, and his knowledge to withstand these questions and accept the fact that they are not only fair, but necessary.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

COMMENT 47639 Steve Slott November 25, 2013 at 1:38 am

Actually, in regard to Paul Melters, I’ve found him to be very entertaining with the webpage he has devoted to Dr. Johnson and me. It’s flattering that anyone deems our posts to be of that much importance!

Steven D. Slott, DDS

COMMENT 47700 Louise Mantella November 25, 2013 at 10:23 pm |

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Dear Steve

I would not use the word “entertaining”. I find it disturbing that someone has to go to such lengths to document that the information provided by dental professionals on this issue can be so false and misleading. Having been a witness to some of the exchanges I was shocked to learn that this same false information is used to influence municipalities to fluoridate water supplies.