Fluoride, The Arguments, The Science & The Failure

Vinny Eastwood | 3 Oct 2015

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxAO-6rfHM&w=492&h=277]
This is a message from Fluoride Free New Zealand www.fluoridefree.org.nz

We wish to inform you, the public, about fluoride,

But, because of the actions of fluoridationists to prevent us from doing so,

We’re forced to explain their methods of argument to you.

1 “If you can’t argue, then ignore the person who’s asking questions”

In February 2014, Dr Paul Connett Started His Tour of New Zealand,

At a Waitemate and Auckland DHB meeting the following day,

the fluoride issue was raised by Board member Alison Roe,

questioning the validity of the fluoride study conducted in Napier,

upon which the decision to fluoridate New Zealand was partly hinged.

The reply came in short order from Dr Julia Peters “The issue is not about science, but about community values”

2 “If you’re losing the argument, start calling your opponent names”

In May 2013, around the same time Hamilton city councillors voted 7-1 to remove fluoride from its water, Talk radio host Sean Plunkett referred in an article to anyone wanting fluoride out of Wellingtons water as “flat-earth conspiracy theorist nutters”

3 “If you’re lying, repeat the lies often”

The phrase “Safe and effective” has been repeated so much, over such a long period of time, that they’re almost synonymous with fluoride, even though, there is conclusive evidence to suggest that it is at best, useless and at worst detrimental.

4 “If the facts don’t support your argument, just pretend anyone opposing your view is using fictional or unscientific evidence, or simply iterate that they’re wrong.”

When Fluoride was taken out of Hamiltons water in May 2013, the City Council sent a fluoride information pamphlet to residents of the area, illustrating the evidence which convinced them to remove fluoride from the drinking water.

The responses from dentists, in particular Dr Jonathan Broadbent were claiming misinformation, unscientific findings, that it was total fiction or completely wrong.

5“If you can’t force medicate people legally because it’s a human rights violation, make a new law that says fluoride is not medicine.”

When the argument was made by New Health New Zealand in October of 2014 that fluoride was a medication, and therefore the government are force medicating the public, the high court disagreed, and then asked the health minister to change the law, just to be sure that fluoride is legally not a medication, even though it is added as a preventative dental treatment.

Obviously this kind of behaviour is intolerable and must be stopped immediately, we want to be treated with respect and have a proper civilised debate on this issue. We do not wish to be called names, we do not want to be defamed or mischaracterised, we are concerned citizens who are taking responsibility on behalf of others who cannot speak for themselves, to protect the public interest, in particular the health of the vulnerable, like pregnant women and infants.

For example, here we have 2 bottles of fluoridated water

One contains 1 part per million of pharmacy grade fluoride tablets available from your local pharmacy.

The other contains Wellington fluoridated tap water at 0.85 parts per million from an unapproved hydrofluorsilicic acid source.

Medicine regulations from 1984 identify 5 groups that require varying dosage warnings.

1 Pregnant Women

2 Children Under 3

3 Children 3-5

4 Children 6-8

5 Persons 9 and over

For the pharmaceutical grade fluoridated water,

Pregnant women are allowed: NONE

Children under 3 are allowed: NONE

3-5 year old children are allowed: 250ml per day maximum

6-8 year old children are allowed: 500ml per day maximum

and persons 9 and older are allowed: 1litre per day.

By contrast, the tap water has no restriction for the dose to any of the groups at all,

they can drink as much as they like, with the recommended dose being up to 8 glasses per day.

Where dental health is concerned, a solution is far easier than describing the problems, so let’s give you one.

In 2005, Scotland instituted its “Child Smile” program,

This program had 3 objectives

1 Regular pre school and primary school dental screenings

2 Daily supervised brushing at pre-schools and low decile primary schools

3 Education for parents and children about healthy foods and drinks.

The results should be a wake up call to the New Zealand Dental Association and District Health Boards across the country, including the Ministry of health.

What they found was not only did dental decay rates decline, they declined faster than fluoridated areas.

With 73% of Year 8 students being free of decay compared to only 54% of Kiwi Kids

Scotlands rates for dental fillings for children of age 5 was cut by more than half from 2.93 on average to 1.27

There is no way the MOH could deny the success of un-fluoridated Scotland’s child smile program.

The time has come to scrap fluoride as a failed social experiment and uptake some real initiatives that are actually showing results, to do anything less, encourages tooth decay and risks public safety, something fluoridationists have claimed to have been against all along and now, if they’re willing, they can finally achieve it.

There is a fear in the dental and scientific community that they will lose credibility if they abandon their support of fluoride, to the contrary, they will gain credibility by virtue of their honesty and integrity and regain the public trust as a result.


Leave a Reply