Statement 9

False Statement # 9 by Steve Slott, DDS

SLOTT: "It is futile to attempt to make any kind of assessment on effectiveness water fluoridation or any of the numerous other variables involved in formation of dental decay without controlling for these factors. There are countless peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. i will gladly provide you with a list of some of them if you so desire."

Response by Paul Melters to Steve Slott (September 2013)

To Steve Slott

You wrote:

SLOTT: "It is futile to attempt to make any kind of assessment on effectiveness water fluoridation or any of the numerous other variables involved in formation of dental decay without controlling for these factors. There are countless peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. i will gladly provide you with a list of some of them if you so desire."

PM: Okay, why don't you post one of those "countless studies" which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation and which has accounted for confounding factors such as race, gender, age, total intake, tooth eruption, brushing and other oral hygiene factors, socio-economic status, etc.? Let's have a look at them.

So far, Slott has been unable to post ONE study, as it doesn't exist. He has been asked the question repeatedly - at least 30 times.

UPDATE (September 8, 2013)

3 further responses were received on September 5, as well as September 7.

On two occasions Slott provided an excerpt from a review which had the word “confounding” in the abstract.

Slott was asked to post a list of the established confounding factors. He was unable to do so.

The third time he posted 5 abstracts from various papers. Most were reviews, some were data surveys which did not account for most of the established confounding factors specified in the
question, only a select few - as has been done countless times to prove the “efficacy of water fluoridation”.

Not ONE study was provided as had been asked for.

SEE:

Response 1 - http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/sept__5_s9rs.html
Response 2 - http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/statement_9__response_sept_7a.html
Response 3 - http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/sept_7b.html

UPDATE (September 10, 2013)

“Expert” Slott posted the same 2012 Rugg-Gunn review at least 9 more times over the weekend of September 7/8. He was unable to provide a list on established confounding factors, and was further unable to cite which ones had actually been investigated by Rugg-Gunn in his review. When questioned, he just kept reposting the same abstract over and over again, an act certainly bordering on perseveration.