Please acknowledge: Professor Paul Connett exchanges with Journalist Neil Keene


GENRE: Response to email exhange

TO:  The General Public; Various email Bcc list

AUTHOR: Professor Paul Connett – Contact: http://www.fluoridealert.org/about/team/

DATE SENT:   Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM

TITLE:  Please acknowledge: Professor Paul Connett exchanges with Journalist Neil Keene

STATUS: Please forward widely, this post.

UPDATES:  Please post all updates and comments in the LEAVE A REPLY section below.

EXTERNAL LINKS:  PDF to download
(with express permission by Professor Connett to FORWARD WIDELY into the community; and,please also include the link to this ASWLA post)
DOWNLOAD:  Neil Keene Exchanges with Connett

PERMALINK TO ASWLA post: https://aswla.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/please-acknowledge-professor-paul-connett-exchanges-with-journalist-neil-keene/

1) Neil Keene to Paul Connett (August 19, 2013)

Hi Paul,

I am a journalist with The Daily Telegraph in Sydney and am covering a story about a local council (Lismore) voting against fluoridation of drinking water. That decision has been criticized by health authorities here in Australia who warn of increased tooth disease. I wanted to ask your opinion and also why you believe those authorities are wrong. It would be great if you could get back to me within a day or so in order for me to meet deadline.

Kind regards,

Neil Keene

 ~~~~~

2) Paul To Keene, August 19.

Dear Neil,

I would be happy to chat with you about this issue. To fully appreciate the incredible ignorance – only matched by the arrogance  – of both the Australian medical and dental profession on this – it would be helpful if you could spend a little time browsing through the chapter summaries of the book I co-authored on this subject with two other independent scientists (The Case Against Fluoride). In the event that the summaries interest you I have also attached a pdf of the full book (for your personal use only). You will note that every argument in this book is backed up with references to the scientific literature – 80 pages in all.

You might also check our web page at www.FluorideALERT.org – click on the researchers button (top right) to see our comprehensive health data base on fluoride.

And something that will only take 28 minutes – click on videos and watch “Professional perspectives on water fluoridation” where you will see that we are not alone in our opposition to this foolish practice. Shorter still 10 Facts on Fluoride prepared my son should be a useful introduction to this subject.

With that in place as background I will write again tomorrow and explain more about Australia’s history on this matter. This makes the kind of attack on those who have sensibly opposed fluoridation in Lismore totally unacceptable.

Paul

 ~~~~~

3. Keene to Connett (August 19)

Thanks Paul – I am limited for space with the story so would suggest you condense what you want to say in a few lines – I know that is problematic but unfortunately we only have a certain length and layout with which to work. I hope you understand.

Kind regards,

Neil Keene

 ~~~~~

4. Connett to Keene

I am afraid that Australia is in the mess it is in with this foolish practice because none of the mainstream media is prepared to do an in-depth story on this issue. As long as it is short sound bites from each side the status quo of “authority” – however ill-informed and biased that authority is – will win out. Australian coverage goes something like this – “the ADA, AMA, the CDC, the WHO all say that fluoridation is the best thing since sliced bread (with no science offered to support this claim) while Mrs. Clutterbuck down the road who runs a bakery says it is a bad idea!”

Neil I sent you a pdf copy of my book to show you that the opponents of fluoridation have a solid, serious documented scientific and ethical case against fluoridation. Practically no Australian journalist in recent times has yet to acknowledge this. I have visited Australia FIVE times on this issue. I have spoken in Lismore twice. In each of my visits I have challenged any dentist, doctor, scientist or public health official to debate me in public. Most recently Dr. Michael Foley in Queensland. All have refused. Even though many proponents of fluoridation speak with enormous confidence about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation none (i.e. not a single one of them in the whole of Australia) of them has the guts or confidence to defend their position against me in public debate. Why is that? The answer is simple. They simply don’t have the science on their side. They use two techniques to obscure this fact:

1) They cite a long list of agencies that endorse fluoridation. Endorsements are not science.

2) They ridicule and denigrate opponents of fluoridation as being emotional, flat-earthers, with no science!

I am afraid as long as the media continues its superficial treatment of this issue they will get away with these tactics.

The only hope for sanity here is to win people over one open mind and one community at a time – Lismore is the latest example. There will be many more but it is a slow process without the media doing a professional job.

You could try a little experiment to test what I have written above is accurate. Ask any or all of the individuals or organizations that are screaming bloody murder about Lismore’s vote if they are willing to publicly debate me when I come back to Australia early next year. If they say yes (they won’t) I will organize my visit around one of the dates and place they offer for this debate. So on the one hand you have “authority” which is used effectively with the public and the media – and yet that very same “authority” does not have the confidence or the ability to defend its position in public debate – only on solo platforms, where none of their assurances can be challenged. Should you try this little experiment please keep careful notes on their replies – it will make a nice article!

Now here is a brief summary of Australia’s pathetic support for this practice and why professionals should be ashamed to support it.

1) Every medical professional should know the crucial importance of the patient’s right to informed consent to medical treatments, sanctified in international agreements. This is being violated every day for millions of citizens in Australia and yet professionals standby and do nothing about it. We are allowing whole communities even whole states to do to everyone what an individual doctor or dentist can do to no one. It is common sense: you shouldn’t use the public water supply to medically treat human beings. You can’t control the dose or who gets the medicine and as noted above it violates each individual’s right to informed consent to medication.

2) Even though Australia has been fluoridating for over 50 years there has been practically no studies examining the health of citizens living in fluoridated communities. The attitude is that the “absence of study” is the same as “the absence of harm”. Nonsense. if you don’t look you don’t find. So what we get in OZ are endless studies on teeth as if it was the only tissue in the body.

3) Australia has never attempted to track the levels of fluoride in people’s urine, blood or bones as a way of monitoring exposure – critical for epidemiological studies. This even though the NHMRC in 1991 suggested that they do this for bone.

4) The WHO recommends that before a community is fluoridated authorities should ascertain what the current exposure of citizens is to fluoride. There are many sources today. They never do this in Australia. One way it could be done is to measure the prevalence of dental fluorosis in the community (DF is an indicator of over-exposure to fluoride before the permanent teeth have erupted). If the prevalence is over 10% then that community already has sufficient exposure to fluoride – this is based on the stated position of the first promoters of fluoridation in the US. They believed that at 1 ppm fluoride only 10% of the kids will have DF. In the US today we have 41% of kids aged 12-15 with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010).

5) Many people claim to be highly sensitive to fluoride, experiencing a variety of symptoms that disappear when the source of fluoride is removed and reappear when it is re-introduced. In 1991 the NHMRC recommended that these anecdotal reports be examined scientifically by government health bodies. This has never been done, even though a number of victims have offered themselves for study. Why not?

6) Even though most dental authorities now accept that the predominant benefit of fluoride to teeth is achieved TOPICALLY and not systemically (in other words it works on the outside of the teeth not from inside the body) few in Australia have drawn the obvious conclusion – if anyone wants fluoride brush it on your teeth using fluoridated toothpaste and spit it out. This way you minimize exposure to all the other tissues in the body and you avoid forcing it on people who don’t want it. In other words topical applications solve the ethical problem and most of the medical problems.

7) Related to 6) is the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that fluoride is a nutrient. Not one single biochemical process inside the body needs fluoride – however many can be harmed by fluoride. This is probably why the level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is so incredibly low – 0.004 ppm. This means incidentally that a bottle fed baby gets 250 times more fluoride than a breast fed baby in a fluoridated community. That is a reckless thing to allow.

8) A major concern I have had since 1996 is the affect that fluoride might be having on the development of the baby’s brain. The evidence for this concern is growing by the day.

Here is a summary of the evidence:

Over 40 animal studies

show that prolonged exposure to fluoride can damage the brain.

19 animal studies

report that mice or rats ingesting fluoride have an impaired capacity to learn and remember.

12 studies

(7 human, 5 animal) link fluoride with neurobehavioral deficits

3 human studies

link fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development

37 out of 43 published studies show that fluoride lowers IQ

27 of these IQ studies have recently been the subject of a meta-analysis from Harvard University (Choi et al, 2012). All of the studies listed above can be accessed at FluorideALERT.org/issues/health/brain

Needless to say, in its reckless defense of this foolish practice Australian health agencies have totally ignored all this literature on fluoride’s impact on the brain and made absolutely no effort to reproduce any of these studies in your country.

In other words the continued promotion of fluoridation in Australia by your health agencies and professional bodies  is irresponsible, unscientific and unprofessional. I hope this helps a little.

Paul Connett

 ~~~~~

5) Keene to Connett a question about nationality and place of residence.

 ~~~~~

6) Keene’s article (Daily Telegraph, August 20, 2013).

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/expert-warns-that-scaremongering-by-8216fringe8217-antifluoridation-activists-was-affecting-children8217s-health/story-fni0cx12-1226701345900

 ~~~~~

7) Paul’s letter to Keene after reading his article (August 20)

Dear Neil,

I have just read your article

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/expert-warns-that-scaremongering-by-8216fringe8217-antifluoridation-activists-was-affecting-children8217s-health/story-fni0cx12-1226701345900

What happened here? You sought my opinion ( I assumed to write a balanced article) I provided you with a copy of my book, chapter summaries of the same, links to our webpage (health data base, videos from professionals and my son) and also a summary of my concerns.

Yet NOTHING from me at all in your article. Instead you give ALL the space to Dr. Michael Foley – someone who has refused to debate me in public. And you continue to give credence to the self-serving mantra of proponents  that the opponents of fluoridation are all  on the fringe  – and not bona fide scientists like the three authors of the book I sent to you.

As far as Foley is concerned – who you treat as the ultimate authority – you would think would you not that if his criticisms and claims were sound he would be eager to debate me? Unless of course he believes he can win the argument without having to defend them against opponents in public with the help of journalists like yourself

Perhaps you have an explanation for this extraordinary poor journalism.  If so please send it to me immediately. To me it is utterly unprofessional.

Paul Connett

 ~~~~~

8) Resent 11:30 am on August 21 (Sydney time)

Dear Neil,

I haven’t heard from you, so I have decided to send this to you again to make sure you have received it. Please acknowledge receipt even if you are disinclined to respond.

Sent yesterday

Dear Neil,

I have just read your article

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/expert-warns-that-scaremongering-by-8216fringe8217-antifluoridation-activists-was-affecting-children8217s-health/story-fni0cx12-1226701345900

What happened here? You sought my opinion (I assumed to write a balanced article) I provided you with a copy of my book, chapter summaries of the same, links to our webpage (health data base, videos from professionals and my son) and also a summary of my concerns.

Yet NOTHING from me at all in your article. Instead you give ALL the space to Dr. Michael Foley – someone who has refused to debate me in public. And you continue to give credence to the self-serving mantra of proponents  that the opponents of fluoridation are all  on the fringe  – and not bona fide scientists like the three authors of the book I sent to you.

As far as Foley is concerned – who you treat as the ultimate authority – you would think would you not that if his criticisms and claims were sound he would be eager to debate me? Unless of course he believes he can win the argument without having to defend them against opponents in public with the help of journalists like yourself

Perhaps you have an explanation for this extraordinary poor journalism.  If so please send it to me immediately. To me it is utterly unprofessional.

Paul Connett

~~~~~

9) Keene to Paul (August 21, 2013)

Hi Paul,

I am writing further articles about this issue and may include your comments in one of these, depending on the briefing from my news desk.

Kind regards,

Neil Keene.

 ~~~~~

10) Paul to Neil (August 21, 2013)

Dear Neil,

I am afraid the harm has been done. Because of the massive bullying tactics from NSW government, the dental lobby and articles like yours I hear that Ballina voted 6 to 2 to go ahead with fluoridation and Lismore is likely to reverse its vote.

It is a huge shame in my view that you have been used as pawn in this process.

I can only hope that some time in the future you will take the time to read some of the material I sent you to see how foolish this practice is. I also hope you will be as horrified as I am with the role the media has played in duping the Australian public on this issue.

Paul Connett

Advertisements

7 comments on “Please acknowledge: Professor Paul Connett exchanges with Journalist Neil Keene

  1. Journalism nowadays seems to be “presstitution” one sided non backed up rhetoric sensationist reporting governed by the will of the professionals who refuse to show credible data, in this case “fluoride.” Why do they suppose anyone in the dental profession would want to heal anything and put themselves out of business; when the truth would appear to be these people causing more health issues to continue receiving the research dollars in many cases supplied by the providers of dental products. Colgate University of Adelaide springs to mind! So who is pushing the journalist’s buttons and where is the integrity?

  2. Pingback: The fluoride debate: Response to Paul’s 5th article | Open Parachute

  3. Pingback: The following juxtaposition should worry all Australians… (letter by Dr Paul Connett) | Australian Safe Water Letter Archive (ASWLA)

  4. It’s another ABC “Catalyst” job from the “presstitutes” who think they’ve got the “balance” right by asking for a “one-liner” from the opposing viewpoint. What utter arrogance on the part of Neil Keene. I’ve suggested he write a complete expose in the coming issues after he’s read and watched ALL the material he’s been given by Professor Connett.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s