New York – November 30, 2016 – A coalition of environmental, medical and health groups have served the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a Petition calling on the Agency to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to the risks these chemicals pose to the brain, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Bethany, you’re getting close to the truth, but you’re not quite there, when you write:
“Fluoridated drinking water may not help bones, but it does reduce cavities by 25 percent in both adults and children.”
First of all, we invite you to learn more about fluoride and bone right here. Secondly, you seem to be misinformed about the alleged benefits of water fluoridation and therefore take these for granted. These resources will help clarify the matter for you:
Now you have no excuse not to know.
This pathetic excuse for a journalist writes the following:
“The dental profession needs to make it unambiguously clear to local government councillors that at the next election, they will mobilise their colleagues, and their patients, to vote against any councillor who countenances a ban on fluoridation. In this campaign dentists need to call on the support of the medical profession. The Australian Medical Association is a more powerful industrial organisation than the CFMEU.”
This constitutes nothing less than a direct threat; a disgraceful call for the bullying and threatening of local councils into making the decision to inject fluoridation chemicals into public drinking water supplies, regardless of the democratic will of the people.
Exactly as Dr. Paul Connett warned local councillors in New Zealand, we can see this type of ‘dental thuggery’ being promoted – in fact, demanded – in Queensland; and it must be exposed and resisted at all costs.
This article contends that poor dental health in Queensland children is a direct consequence of lack of public water fluoridation schemes across the state, and that by implication those who oppose or prevent artificial water fluoridation programs from being implemented are harming the dental health of the community. The first thing to do here is to broaden the scope beyond the narrow bandwidth of the water fluoridation status of Queensland. Once we do this, we quickly realise that the pro-fluoridation contention that lack of artificial fluoridation programs results in increased tooth decay, is false…
Whilst the fact that a certain number of professionals oppose or support measure X, Y or Z does not automatically constitute a valid argument one way or another, it is always worth noting when professional or expert voices have something detailed to say on a matter. Their arguments should at the very least be taken seriously and aired appropriately. Since its inception, water fluoridation has been opposed by numerous well-qualified individuals and this continues into the present day…
[Original article here]
For over 70 years the promotion of fluoridation has been based on “authority” rather than sound science. Thus it came as no surprise when the NZ Ministry of Health in their current attempt to introduce mandatory fluoridation by stealth, called on some prestigious scientists and researchers to produce a blue ribbon panel report to support the claims that the practice is safe. Heading up this panel were none other than the Prime minister’s chief scientific adviser Sir Peter Gluckman along with Sir David Skegg, president of the Royal Society of New Zealand. The panel faithfully obliged and their report was released on August 22, 2014 and entitled: Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence. Gluckman and Skegg signed off on the review’s content and their overall conclusion (surprise, surprise) was that fluoridation is “safe.”
However, the report is full of mistakes, omissions, misrepresentations and selective use of the literature. One of the biggest mistakes came in their cavalier dismissal of the Harvard meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies (Choi et al., 2012). Gluckman and Skegg repeat a major mistake made by many promoters of fluoridation. They incorrectly stated that the average lowering of IQ in 26 of the 27 studies was a downward shift of “less than 1 IQ point.” However this mistake was corrected by Choi et al over 2 year’s ago. It was not a drop of half an IQ point but a drop of half of one standard deviation, which is the equivalent of 7 IQ points. That is a very big difference!
The Gluckman and Skegg team “corrected” this mistake in an updated version of their report. But they corrected their mistake in a way that would not be clear to the layperson but worse still made this change without changing the conclusion derived from the mistake. This conclusion – for anyone knowledgeable on the subject – is ridiculous, but unfortunately many will be deceived by this manipulation and conclude there is no problem with fluoride’s neurotoxicity – and specifically its ability to lower IQ in children.
Thus I urge you to compare below the original and corrected version of their text. I have put in bold the words changed and the derived conclusion in italics -this conclusion is not changed between the two versions.
ORIGINAL VERSION: “Recently there have been a number of reports from China and other areas …that have claimed an association between high water fluoride levels and minimally reduced intelligence (measured as IQ) in children…the claimed shift of less than one IQ point suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artifact of no functional significance”
CORRECTED VERSION: “Recently there have been a number of reports from China and other areas …that have claimed an association between high water fluoride levels and minimally reduced intelligence (measured as IQ) in children…the claimed shift of less than one standard deviation suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artifact of no functional significance.”
If this correction had been stated more clearly, as it should have been, it would have appeared as:
“Recently there have been a number of reports from China and other areas …that have claimed an association between high water fluoride levels and minimally (should have been omitted, PC) reduced intelligence (measured as IQ) in children…the claimed shift of 7 IQ points suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artifact of no functional significance.”
Communicated this way it would have been obvious that the conclusion was sheer nonsense, since a shift downwards of 7 IQ points -were it to occur – would more than halve the number of geniuses in the NZ population and more than double the number of mentally handicapped. That would have huge economic and social implications for NZ but according to Gluckman and Skegg and their “corrected” version stands, “it would have no functional significance”!
So we are left with a very uncomfortable question, did Gluckman and Skegg and their advisers simply make a clumsy mistake, or was this a deliberate attempt to deceive the public?
In addition to the specific deception above, their overview of neurotoxicity was highly selective and self-serving. Other than the Harvard meta-analysis they ignored the over 300 animal and human studies that also lend weight to fluoride’s neurotoxicity, but selected one study that failed to find a difference in IQ between a fluoridated and non-fluoridated community – Broadbent et al., 2014. How selective is that? Moreover, they failed to note that this study has been critiqued for its lack of power to detect a difference (see the Feb 2016 letter by Osmunson, Limeback and Neurath that was published in the same journal where the Broadbent article was published). There were virtually no controls. There were over 900 children in the fluoridated community but less than 90 in the non-fluoridated and about half of these were exposed to fluoride via supplements.
Despite the many mistakes and misrepresentations it contains, this review is still being heavily used to engineer mandatory fluoridation in NZ. Gluckman and Skegg and their co-authors have let down the public, who have the right to expect far better from such “prestigious” scientists and the bodies they represent.
Co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010) and senior adviser to the Fluoride Action Network
Learn more about water fluoridation