Request to Michelle Dickinson to debate Fluoride
REQUEST to MICHELLE DICKINSON (AKA Nanogirl) to debate Fluoride
Your incredulous reaction to Prof Paul Connett’s appearance at Parliament on the 30th January Newshub piece is in stark contrast to your response to being asked to participate in a debate against Prof Connett in April 2017.
You said, “As you know I do a lot of media, so would be happy to participate in a debate on a mainstream channel (perhaps the Nation would be a good program for it). I’d be happy to team up with Gluckman if he agreed to it.” You even went as far as to say that, “it’s a debate that needs to happen.” (Michelle Dickinson 16 April 2017 in emails to Fluoride Free NZ).
It seems quite a
turnaround to now say that you think it is wrong for the
Parliamentarians to even hear from those opposed to
fluoridation. You said, “I am horrified that we are
having this sort of meeting. We have the Prime Minister’s
science advisor showing the data, why are we bringing in
very extremist views when the science is very clear. And
it’s not a debate.”
Michelle Dickinson Newshub 30 January 2018
Are you not aware that in September 2017 an international study was published inEnvironmental Health Perspectives that found levels of fluoride in pregnant women caused a significant IQ loss in their children? This study is widely considered to be the strongest study on fluoride’s neurotoxicity ever conducted. Levels of fluoride were similar to those found in New Zealand women drinking fluoridated water.
The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and used medical data from a large group of mother-child pairs in Mexico. The research team was led by scientists at the University of Toronto and included experts from the University of Michigan, McGill and Indiana Universities, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Harvard School of Public Health and National Institute of Public Health of Mexico.
Dr. Howard Hu, lead author said, “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.” –National Post 9/20/17 . . . “We tested for all the things we could think of that could act on neurodevelopment. But we haven’t found anything else that was a potential confounder.” – CTV News 9/19/17
Dr. Phillipe Grandjean, world-renowned scientist/author on neurotoxicity, unaffiliated with this study said: “I think this study is a red flag. And when you take it into consideration with the Chinese studies, I think the time is way overdue for a broad-scale evaluation of fluoride exposure.” – Medscape 10/2/17
The Report carried out by the New Zealand Chief Science advisor could not possibly have considered this study. Therefore, the science is not settled.
So, Michelle, if you are still of the opinion that the data on fluoride is "very clear", will you reconsider and front up to a debate on the fluoride issue? Remember you were the one that said “it’s a debate that needs to happen.”
National Coordinator and Media Spokesperson