Be Reasonable: Episode #064 – Paul Connett

This episode, Marsh is joined by Dr Paul Connett, a retired chemist and the head of the anti-fluoridation organisation the Fluoride Action Network.

  1. #1 by Chris on June 23, 2020 - 05:07

    I believe we would need to look closer that the “citations” he uses for the effect of fluoride on the intelligence of children, especially with the fact that the Flynn Effect is real.

    Perhaps a study of two cities that are near to each other. Seattle, WA has fluoridated water, but just a three hour drive south is Portland, OR… where the water does not contain fluoride. A quicky PubMed search finds nothing comparing either city on child intelligence, nor the difference it tooth health.

  2. #2 by Chris on June 23, 2020 - 05:15

    Using the Googles, I only found news articles on the most recent vote to authorize fluoridation in Portland, OR… which failed. In the mainstream media there was this article (which may be pay walled, I have a subscription):

    Here are a few relevant paragraphs (I wish that they had linked to the Oregon state data that was mentioned):

    Plunkett, the dentist, said the anti-fluoridation forces have “cherry-picked” flimsy scientific data to support their preconceived fears: “I knew there would be some of that, but I’m shocked at how brazen people are.”

    Health organizations and the city’s political leaders have presented their case as an equity issue.

    They say Portland has a dental crisis, mostly borne by children in poverty whose parents either lack insurance or don’t have the education to provide the right nutrition and dental habits. Fluoridation, they stress, will give those children some protection against tooth decay.

    A recent state survey showed 21 percent of Portland children between 6 and 9 have untreated dental decay – 6 percentage points higher than what was found in a similar 2010 survey of Seattle children who drink fluoridated water.

    Plunkett, who primarily treats lower-income patients, is from Arkansas and went to dental school in Kansas City. He moved to Portland in 2007 and has noticed that teeth here, generally speaking, are softer, more prone to decay and breakage.

    “You don’t have that first line of defense of stronger teeth that you have when there is fluoridation,” he said.

  3. #3 by Patrick McGinnes on June 25, 2020 - 04:04

    To be honest this was the first Be Reasonable that was not painful to listen to. I had a ton of health problems, started losing weight doing the “I give up i”ll just eat pizza every day at least that’s calorie restriction” diet, and lost 50 pounds. Made it my goal to lose 60 pounds but this time I was trying harder and eating a less suicidal diet.

    I was also working a job where I didn’t get breaks or lunches, worked 8-10 hour shifts. It was a taco restaurant connected to a truck stop. My boss ate keto, I mocked it at first because I had heard the arguments in the skeptical movement about how it’s just a fancy atkins and blah blah blah.

    I ended up trying it because my friend had good results and a science youtube channel I liked found that it helped him control his Type 1 diabetes.

    As I learned more about Keto I learned a lot about bias in the scientific community, about how overwhelming egos can be, and how the scientific community can really shoot good science down by doing the most bull shirt of studies.

    For example most of the literature that looks at “low carb diets” have the carbs over 100. while 20 carbs is a bit extreme, 50 is an absolute maximum these studies should be looking at.

    But as an American I’m FAR more concerned with the 3,000 plus zipcodes with lead poisoning rates higher than that of Flint Michigan. You think 1 part per million of flouride is doing damage? Wait until you learn what Fraccing, Lead, and High Fructose Corn Syrup is doing to people.

    I don’t support or deny this guy and his work. I find that destruction of and poisoning our water tables so that we can rapidly heat the planet up past the point of no return, while not even looking into whether or not grass feeding animals sequesters enough to be viable long term… as far more important than 7 IQ points.

    I mean… The guy is fine, this conversation I 100% am not disgusted by unlike every other conversation… But if he’s right we save 7 IQ points for 1 million individuals over a period of years. Like awesome.

    If I’m right… we reduce ADHD, Dementia, Alzheimer’s, lower cancer risk, reduce macular degeneration, arthritis, increase people’s energy… I honestly think that if we promoted a ketogenic diet people wouldn’t hurt as much all the time, so 5G woo wouldn’t proliferate, because people wouldn’t be eating Omega 6 inflammation driving seed oils. Like cook with lard and bacon grease over canola oils and stuff…

    But people are probably going to be upset by all this. If Marsh ever reads this, I’m absolutely open to being on the show. You can argue or challenge anything you want.

  4. #4 by Patrick McGinnes on June 25, 2020 - 04:10

    Also I apologize for the gish gallop, but like what am I supposed to say? Some people in the skeptical community are right there with me and know what I’m talking about, and others are kinda misled by really bad science. Tim Noakes if he didn’t have science backing him, if the pro-food pyramid side was correct I honestly believe that he would have lost his licence. They went after him, they threatened him, and he had to defend himself, he brought the science, and they had no choice but to let him continue to put his clients on a ketogenic diet rather than to cut off their toes because that was his job. His job was to amputate body parts of people like Type 2 Diabetics suffering from gangrene and realized that it doesn’t have to be a progressive disease, it’s driven by insulin resistance, and can be reversed in most people.

    Intermittent fasting can often be sufficient by itself.

  5. #5 by Owen Sargisson on June 7, 2021 - 08:15

    Paul Connett’s citations intrigued me, so I’ve just read through the Bashash study. Connett grossly misrepresented its findings, which were themselves based on manipulation more than measurement. The authours found no significant correlation between maternal fluoride and children’s IQ in any of their groups, except for mothers that had <12 years of school and mothers that had IQs under 100. The authours then constructed a linear regression model that predicted (not measured, but predicted) a drop in IQ of 2.5 points (not the 5 points that Connett quoted) for high maternal fluoride. Basically, despite the size and complexity of the study, there is very little support for the connection between maternal fluoride exposure and subsequent lowering of children’s IQ.
    If you don’t want to blindly trust my summary (which you shouldn’t) and want to read it for yourself (which you absolutely should), here’s the link:!po=43.3333

(will not be published)