Yes, I know – everyone’s mind is already made up so participants just talk past each other. People’s positions on this and similar issues have become a matter of identity – people are driven by emotions, not information.
But, the information is there – and while I agree many people are driven by emotions they often attempt to use that information to support their positions. In a sense, the information acts as a proxy for their real driving force – their emotions.
Nevertheless, I have always considered a good-faith scientific exchange on issues like this is possible. I believe the exchange I had with Paul Connett, a US anti-fluoride campaigner, four years ago was a good example of what is possible (see Fluoride Debate or download Connett & Perrott (2014) – the pdf document of the exchange).
So, I always look for the chance to repeat that discussion – and I thought that might happen with my recent articles discussing the Mexican maternal prenatal urinary F/child IQ study. Why, because my recent article Paul Connett’s misrepresentation of maternal F exposure study debunked got a response from Mary Byrne, National Coordinator of Fluoride Free New Zealand. I posted her article as Anti-fluoride group coordinator responds to my article.
I responded to that with Mary Byrne’s criticism is misplaced and avoids the real issues and again I offered her a right of reply.
But no response. In fact, she refuses to answer any of my emails.
OK, I can take a hint – but then I see her claiming on Facebook (see image above) that SciBlogs would not allow this discussion! Would not allow “exposure to both sides!” This is patently untrue and she is completely misrepresenting SciBlogs and me.
Note: SciBlogs is a collection of New Zealand science bloggers. My science-oriented blogs usually appear there by syndication.
The email exchange
So it is worth actually looking at the email exchange where Mary requested publication of her article and we responded. Please note the dates and times and excuse the low magnifications. Here are the emails in sequence:
11 March, 12:51 pm: Mary Byrne requests SciBlogs publish her response to my article.
11 March, 1:06pm: After internal passing on the email, Peter Griffin sends it to me.
Pretty quick service. Remember this was a Sunday.
My response was also pretty quick (considering I usually have my daily power nap at that time). I didn’t have to do much thinking about the issue (please excuse my verbosity).
11 March, 2.11 pm
Mary Byrne did not reply so I went ahead anyway and interpreted the original request to mean that a right of reply post on my blog was acceptable. Her article was posted on Tuesday, March 13 (I already posted on Monday and like to spread posts throughout the week) – Anti-fluoride group coordinator responds to my article. I emailed Mary to let her know her article was posted and I would respond to it.
I posted my promised response to her article on Wednesday, March 14th – Mary Byrne’s criticism is misplaced and avoids the real issues and sent Mary an email to let her know – once again offering her another right of reply.
So, Mary’s claim of SciBlogs not allowing exposure from both sides is completely false.
Incidentally, I have emailed Mary asking her to correct that misrepresentation. She has ignored my email, as she ignored all the other emails I have sent her about this issue. The misrepresentation is still on the Fluoride Free NZ Facebook page.
So, I do not expect Mary to continue this exchange, unfortunately. And I do regret she has chosen to misrepresent the situation in the way she has.
But I guess it is just another case of misrepresentation by an anti-fluoridation activist.