When the proponents of water fluoridation are not afforded the luxury offered by state mandates to force the measure, they instead devise cunning, multifaceted strategies for the manipulation of individual councils and communities. In their unbending arrogance, they enjoy publishing the results of their successful campaigns, so that other proponents can adopt similar models. These publications offer unique insights for opponents of water fluoridation, upon which they may devise preemptive information countermeasures in their respective communities.
In this post, we draw attention to one of the more brazen papers of recent times, by Sivaneswaran et al. (2010), which lays out the strategies used by the NSW Health Department in their manipulation of the 2004 Deniliquin plebiscite, which secured a vote in favor of water ﬂuoridation.
The Sivaneswaran et al. (2010) paper grows ever more relevant, especially in light of the developing situation in Queensland, where the policy of state-enforced fluoridation was rescinded in late 2012. Despite a desperate push by the pro-fluoridation cartel to see the re-introduction of the previous policy, numerous councils have seized upon the opportunity to halt the injection of fluoridation chemicals into their water supplies. Queensland Health (the pro-fluoridation equivalent of the NSW Health Department) has dispatched its best ‘hit teams’ to various communities, hoping to reverse the anti-fluoridation tide. The tactics they are using in this effort mirror those used in Deniliquin NSW.
Sivaneswaran et al. (2010) – Full text
Tactics of manipulation
“The skillful use of media to educate the community on the beneﬁts of water ﬂuoridation”.
“Disseminating contemporary local data to demonstrate oral health disparities with neighboring ﬂuoridated townships”.
“A well-established lobbying machine to mobilize the community”.
“Our experiences in Deniliquin show that it is possible to inﬂuence the outcome of ﬂuoridation plebiscites in favor of water ﬂuoridation in the face of intense opposition”.
“The skillful use of media” is just a fancy way of saying “using propaganda”. The only way the promoters of fluoridation can ‘justify’ the intervention for which they lobby, is to “demonstrate” that oral health is worse in non-fluoridated areas as opposed to fluoridated areas. Given that “it is NSW Health policy to continue water fluoridation”, there would be a clear conflict between the policy and the data, if the data were to reveal superior oral health in a non-fluoridated community (as recently witnessed in Oregon USA).
The evidence for fluoridation’s alleged effectiveness is acknowledged as poor, internationally (CRD 2003; Cheng et al. 2007; Chalmers 2010). Therefore, in light of NSW Health’s obvious conflict of interest, “contemporary local data” cannot be trusted when produced by this department to “demonstrate oral health disparities”. For their policy to be fully extended and implemented, the data ‘must’ show the ‘correct’ disparities.
As for tiny rural NSW communities, “a well-established lobbying machine” ensures a perpetual and overwhelming monopoly of influence in favour of the pro-fluoridation juggernaut, which small-town opponents could never hope to match financially. This monopoly does not exist to promote truth, good science, or sound ethical reasoning – but rather, is designed and utilised for the sole purpose of manipulating councils and communities to support an archaic, fraudulent practice.
However, no amount of media influence, money, slick propaganda or false ‘white coat authority’ can ever be a substitute for truth. Truth and open debate must be avoided at costs, if the “well-established lobbying machine” is to succeed.
Learning from Deniliquin’s experience
The best hope for a non-fluoridated community to remain so, is to become aware of the deviously manipulative tactics of the pro-fluoridation cartel, well before the formal push for fluoridation begins. Sivaneswaran et al. (2010), in their arrogance, gloat about their Deniliquin victory, but in doing so they provide a blueprint for anti-fluoridation campaigners to launch preemptive strikes within their respective communities.
Resources for rebuttal
Keeping the debate focused exclusively on teeth is both the greatest strength, and the greatest weakness of the pro-fluoridation propaganda merchants. The evidence for fluoridation’s claimed benefits is actually very weak. Any local anti-fluoridation campaign that is able to preemptively approach its local media, council, political representatives, health professionals and community organisations with this information, will inevitably bend the barrel of the one and only loaded gun of the pro-fluoridation lobby. The three videos and accompanying web page below offer vital information and counter-arguments to the claims of “effectiveness”.
We mentioned above that the greatest strength of the pro-fluoridation mafia is its ability to limit the debate to teeth, whilst ignoring or dismissing other potential health effects. Unfortunately, the brainwashing of the masses and the professional community is so extensive, it can be extremely difficult to get people to view the human body as more than a ‘walking set of teeth’, after the word “fluoride” has entered the discussion. The “well-established lobbying machine” has achieved its desired outcomes on this score. Nevertheless, now that you are armed with the evidence for ineffectiveness, we will also add a few more weapons to your arsenal that will empower you to move the conversation beyond that of simply teeth.
Detailed reading/further research
The Case Against Fluoride is a 2010 book by Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck & Dr. Spedding Micklem, which, according to Dr. Vyvyan Howard, is “a well-researched, cogently argued, and very readable text that summarises historical, political, ethical, toxicological, and epidemiological scientific data behind drinking water fluoridation… approachable by non-scientists and specialists, although an extensive technical bibliography is provided for those who wish to delve deeper”.
We recommend this book as an absolutely essential resource in educating local communities about all aspects of the fluoridation debate. Most importantly, this book will empower your community – councillors, health professionals and everyone else – to recognise the lies, spin and otherwise devious tactics of the “well-established lobbying machine” of the pro-fluoridation mafia, when they target your town. The more hands you can get this book into, before the assault on your town starts, the more likely it will be that enough individuals will be well-informed and confident enough to not only identify and assess the lies of NSW Health and others, but actually DEFEAT them.
In the process of smugly gloating about their 2004 Deniliquin victory, Sivaneswaran et al. (2010) have shot themselves and their masters in the proverbial foot. They have notified Australia and the rest of the fluoridating world, of their tactics. They have confirmed and clarified how they use media manipulation, selective data dissemination and crude lobbying mechanisms to ‘massage’ communities into accepting their policy. By doing so, they have provided opponents of fluoridation with a golden opportunity to formulate more advanced/targeted preemptive grassroots campaigns of education and awareness.