Stan You said this I quote “This is why public health representatives refuse to participate in public debates in the interests of transparent public information.”
In this case it is not the public that has refused. It is the activists Funny when they are pushed into a corner without the debating and gish gallop talents of Connett they run and hide

I asked Fluoride Free New Zealand several times why they would challenge Heather Hastie to a debate, but not take up the offer when Ken Perrott took up the challenge. For that question I was banned from their facebook page.

Mary Byrne requested a debate to discuss the issues surrounding CWF. Ken took up that challenge. I offered this website as a venue. Now Mary Byrne has refused because she says Ken lies and no-one would be interested.

1. In a debate, the speakers make points, and are required to back up those points. If Ken makes untrue statements, there would be plenty of opportunity in a debate to refute his claims. In an open forum like this, he would not be able to lie that without exposing himself publicly. Nor would his opponent.
2. Plenty of people are interested. I am interested for one. It has been suggested that my analysis of the information, which led me to deduce CWF was a good thing, was wrong. I would change my mind if convincing evidence was provided that I am incorrect. I have yet to see any, but if you have the confidence to suggest a public debate, I assume you consider you have some. The entire community of Taumarunui is also interested. I still have not met anyone who does not want fluoride, but we do not have it because of a political tactic by a few.

I must say I’m very disappointed in Ms Byrne’s response to this offer. My website has always been a place where ideas are challenged, not people. The only time where that spirit has been missing is when I wrote this article. I’ve had to warn people before, but have never had to ban anyone from commenting altogether. We have some extremely spirited debates here on a variety of topics, but it was only with this subject that someone became nasty and personal. The only conclusion I can make is that those who oppose CWF do not have evidence to support their view that stands up to scrutiny.

I have emailed Mary with this response:

“Hi Mary,
Just in case you didn’t check back, Heather has offered her blog as a
venue for a debate. I am happy to participate and have suggested you and Stan do so too.
regards
Ken”

She responded with:

“Hi Ken,
I’ve been forgetting to email you back.
I do not want to have a debate with you as I don’t see the point. For one thing, I think you say things that aren’t true and secondly, it would basically only be us that would be interested so I really don’t see the point.
Mary”

So much for their debate challenges. Surely if she really thinks the things I write are untrue whe would welcome the chance to show this and rebut my claims.

Mary Byrne says: “Fluoride Free New Zealand would be happy to participate in an open, public discussion where both sides could be heard. So we therefore challenge you to such a discussion. Details can be worked out so both sides are happy.”

Ken Perrott picked up the gauntlet, Mary. He would like to have an open public discussion where both sides could be heard. Is there now some kind of a problem?

I am extremely disappointed that the Council here made such an important decision as whether or not to have CWF without proper consultation. As I mentioned in my article, everyone I have discussed this with (and I didn’t reveal my opinion first) wants CWF.

I would like to see the community properly informed of all the issues, for a proper debate to be held, and for the community to then decide what they want. If the majority is opposed to CWF, that’s how it should be. If they decide they want it, it should be recommenced.

I am aware of that Pete – people with hangups do come from all walks of life. But the fact is none from the group you mentioned is speaking here – you are putting words into their mouth. And I suggest you are doing so dishonestly as I am sure you don’t have their interests at heart as you oppose a safe, effective social health policy these people benefit from..

If you bothered to read the NZ Fluoridation Review you would have found plenty of citations referring to health studies (that is what the review is about). But your stupid claim that this is somehow a “fake” review is typical of those who refuse to consider evidence.

Talking about cherry-picking – read my article on Stan Litras’s behaviour yet?

And what about getting back to Stan and Mary suggesting they take up Heather’s offer of her blog as a venue for the debate they claim to want? They seem to have run away.

Aha. Typical Ken you have now twisted the argument. Remember people who don’t want fluoride come from all walks of life, abilities, health status, financial, status ability to carry water etc etc etc. You’ve really shot yourself in the foot again I’m afraid.

I’m still waiting for just one safety clinical trial on fluoride (not “fake” literature reviews that shamelessly cherry pick.

Pete, with biological data it is easy to find situations nlike this to suit your preconceived bias. That is why scientific studies use statsitics to determine the chances of such results happening.

Stan Litras is a past master at cherry poicking such data to produce claims that “some non-fluoridated areas have better teeth than fluoridated?” It is easy to get such results wiuth a small sample – although its a desperate tactic.

Look at the whole data, noit cherry pciked small samples.

See Cherry-picking and misinformation in Stan Litras’s anti-fluoride article (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/cherry-picking-and-misinformation-in-stan-litrass-anti-fluoride-article/)