Scoop | 16 Aug 2014
Secret Fluoridation Review Totally One-Sided Admits Chair
15 August 2014
The secret ‘review’ of water fluoridation will only look at research that supports fluoridationists’ belief in ‘the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water’, says Sir Peter Gluckman, co-chair of this thereby-admitted ‘kangaroo review’.
It is no wonder that scientific studies showing water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective have not been sought for this bogus ‘review’.
Even the Ministry of Health admits there is robust scientific research against the claimed safety and effectiveness of fluoridation. But only under the Official Information Act. Publicly it denies this admission. Who could possibly trust these people?
The US National Research Council Review, published in 2006, raised major concerns about toxic health effects of fluoride at levels in NZ drinking water. The NZ Ministry of Health ignores this finding. Only recently, another scientific study showed fluoride reduces IQ, adding to the prestigious Harvard meta-analysis of international studies.
In the US a recent press release stated “A series of disclosures are surfacing about the actions of water fluoridation promoters that point to a likely tsunami of Fluoridegate investigations, hearings, and explosive courtroom entanglements.”
Tennessee state legislator Frank Niceley states, “There is a real Fluoridegate scandal here. Citizens haven’t been told about harm from fluorides”
Washington D.C. toxic tort attorney Chris Nidel says, “I think when we look back we’ll ask why Fluoridegate didn’t surface earlier. There are serious concerns about possible conflict of interest and heavy editing of information being fed to the public about fluoride risks and impacts.”
Does this sound warning bells about this ‘kangaroo review’ by Gluckman and the Royal Society – sure does! Against this background, this secret ‘review’ is extremely alarming – a ‘review’ by committed fluoridationists who deny the published science that fluoridation is not just ineffective, it is a serious health risk. The NZ public deserves better. The NZ public must demand better. Unless we are no more than sheep.
Fluoridation is a crime against humanity. Those who seek to force it on the population need to be held criminally liable. This is especially true of those, like Gluckman, who abuse the trust that the public place in them, believing them to be objective scientists, when they are no more than fanatics pursuing a quasi-religious crusade on this issue.
ENDS
Predetermined ‘research’ outcome commissioned by Waikato Uni
Predetermined ‘research’ outcome commissioned by Waikato University
August 2014
“This is the answer we want – we just need someone to do the ‘research’ to say it” advertises Professor Daniel Zirker of Waikato University.
The research seeks to prove a false theory – that the Hamilton City Council’s original decision to end fluoridation was an undermining of democracy by vested interests. In fact, it was the referendum campaign, run by pro-fluoridation vested interests, leading to reversal of that decision that was the undermining of democracy.
Why would Waikato University faculty staff want to conduct such bogus research and besmirch the name of the University? Does the answer lie with a small group of the university faculty who took an active role in the campaign to overturn the Council’s decision. They even convened a forum with a so-called ‘expert panel’ to answer public questions. This ‘expert panel’ had to ‘phone a friend’ called Mr Google to answer even the most basic questions put to them. Of course they just gave answers from pro-fluoridation websites like that of the Ministry of Health.
Is this proposed bogus ‘research’ intended to justify to themselves that their role in undermining democracy by misleading the public about the science around fluoridation was actually justified?
Fluoridation is supported by a tiny minority of lobbyists around the world. They have immense power and influence, and there is big money at stake. The tactics used by this powerful minority were documented in sociological research published in 1991. We recommend Prof Zirker read it before embarking on a religious crusade to convert the ‘poor benighted heathen opposing fluoridation’ to the glorious religion of fluoridationism. This is where the research should be focussed, not on those advocating truth and transparency around the fluoridation issue.
The fact is that Hamilton City Councillors buckled to political pressure, garnered through an obscene propaganda campaign orchestrated by the Waikato DHB. The DHB even admitted they used propaganda through social media to achieve this undermining of democracy. The original decision was not based on lobbying, but on an examination of the science presented by both sides, with equal opportunity. Conversely, those voting in the referendum had a very narrow opportunity to hear the facts, especially when the Waikato Times was an active partner in the campaign to mislead the public. It even falsified the results of its online surveys, claiming majority votes for fluoridation when the majority was 2:1 against fluoridation.
If Prof Zirker wants to look at vested interests, he should start with the Waikato Times and the NZ Dental Association. He should also look at the DHBs’ Crown Funding Agreements, which ultimately require all DHBs to promote fluoridation as part of their funding.
ENDS
