Yes, this is the absolute, guaranteed, final statement from Paul Connett in this exchange. It responds to Ken Perrott’s last article Fluoride debate: Ken Perrott’s closing response to Paul Connett?
For Paul Connett’s original article see – Fluoride debate Part 1: Connett.
A final attempt to bring this debate back to science.
The structure of this posting.
Part A. A few introductory comments
Part B. Ken’s claim that the Hastings trial was not “fraud” but bad science
Part C. Major issues that have been avoided or poorly addressed
- The difference between concentration and dose
- The need for a Weight of Evidence analysis – especially on fluoride’s impact on the brain
- The need for a Margin of Safety Analysis when harm has been found at a certain level
- A margin of safety analysis for lowered IQ
- Bottle-fed babies: a special case
- Osteosarcoma: politics versus science
PART D. A…
View original post 8,809 more words