Running Scared: The Royal Australasian College of Physicians


Media release – 22 February 2013
Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Claim: “The far-reaching effects of water fluoridation ensure all children are habitually exposed to at least one preventive oral health measure.”

Response: Firstly, the evidence for the ‘benefits’ of water fluoridation is very weak. Secondly, the evidence for water fluoridation reducing inequalities in dental health has been found to be of “poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.” Thirdly, even if water fluoridation were as beneficial as claimed, it would still be illogical. While we’re at it, let’s also add some ADHD drugs to drinking water to calm kids down during school hours; a bit of lithium to lower their chances of committing suicide; and some blood pressure medication for grandma and grandpa too – you know, to ensure they are “habitually exposed” all through the day to the “far-reaching effects” of all these substances. Dosage control? Ah, who cares about that. The more everyone drinks, the better. Never mind about the potential Alzheimer’s risk for the old folks; the neurological development of the young; the effects on endocrine function; or those with potential hypersensitivity reactions. Fluoridation is “completely safe and effective,” because the Royal Australasian College of Physicians said so.

Claim: “The RACP affirms community water fluoridation as the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health.”

Response: Really? Well, this guy must be a non-member: “It would appear that the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in the 21st century is at best questionable.” This guy too: “Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years. It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation.” And perhaps these guys as well: “Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt.” Learn more about modern fluoridation studies and the comparative data.

Claim: “Many scientific reviews provide strong and compelling evidence that community water fluoridation is not only an effective and cost-saving method for reducing tooth decay but it is regarded as one of the ‘top ten’ public health interventions of all time.”

Response: Curious. This review concluded, “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide,” whilst this report identified a multitude of unresolved health issues, and another has been described as one of the worst reviews of all time. Visit our Reports / Reviews page to learn more about each. As for the ‘top ten’ claim, this is laughable, when one considers its background and source.

Claim: “There are consistent socio-economic and ethnic inequalities in oral health status in New Zealand and water fluoridation benefits all people regardless of circumstance.”

Response: “The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.” Ibid.

Claim: “One of the best things about community water fluoridation is that everyone benefits simply by consuming food and drink prepared with fluoridated water.”

Response: The next time you visit the beach, be sure to drink your sunscreen, because drinking fluoridated water makes just about as much sense. Learn more.

Claim: “RACP reiterates that fluoride is a naturally occurring substance.”

Response: “Natural does not necessarily mean good. Arsenic, like fluoride, leaches naturally from rocks into groundwater, but no one suggests topping that up. Besides, there is nothing “natural” about the fluoridating chemicals, as they are obtained largely from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry” (Connett, Beck & Micklem, p. 246).

Claim: “Community water fluoridation, at the optimal level of 0.7-1.0 ppm, is therefore a supplementary health measure.”

Response: “0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups” (Thiessen 2011, p. 5); “The amount of fluoride necessary to cause these effects to susceptible members of the population is at or below the dose received from current levels of fluoride recommended for water fluoridation. The recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water should be zero” (Carton 2006, p. 163); “The dose of fluoride cannot be controlled. Fluoride as a drug has contaminated most processed foods and beverages throughout North America. Individuals who are susceptible to fluoride’s harmful effects cannot avoid ingesting this drug. This presents a medico-legal and ethical dilemma and sets water fluoridation apart from vaccination as a public health measure where doses and distribution can be controlled. The rights of individuals to enjoy the freedom from involuntary fluoride medication certainly outweigh the right of society to enforce this public health measure, especially when the evidence of benefit is marginal at best” (Limeback 2000).

Claim: “RACP is aware that the Fluoride Action Network of New Zealand (FANNZ) is hosting a visiting anti-fluoride academic from the United States to speak in areas where water fluoridation is currently being debated. The potential impact these events and the generated media coverage will have on public knowledge and perspectives on water fluoridation is concerning.”

Response: An alternative viewpoint; counter-arguments; tough questions… OH THE TERROR OF IT ALL!!! The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!! Someone is daring to question our authority!!!! We must stop this person from speaking! [Who are they so scared of? Well of course, Dr. Paul Connett – and if we were promoting fluoridation, we’d be scared to debate Dr. Connett too :-)] Seriously though, if the promoters of fluoridation in New Zealand/Australia were truly as confident as they project themselves to be, then they would have absolutely no trouble debating Dr. Connett (live, video recorded and uploaded to the Web) and defeating his arguments. Alternatively, they could offer a scientific response to his co-authored 2010 book. Instead, they run scared. What are they so afraid of? That’s the million dollar question. Furthermore, why should anyone be expected to believe them based on their “authority” alone, when they are not prepared to defend their views in detail?

Claim: “To help the public make an informed decision on the topic of water fluoridation, the RACP encourages public health agencies and the Ministry of Health to promote the multitude of quality information and research that is publicly available.”

Response: In return, we submit Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010 for wide public consideration; a book which thoroughly critiques the “available” information and offers detailed counter-arguments to pro-fluoridation claims. We also recommend these Research Databases.

Concluding remarks: We remind readers that there are no scientific authorities; no such thing (Krauss a; Krauss b). Therefore, no one should believe the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, just because they are “the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.” This means diddly squat. The facts remain that water fluoridation policy is based upon poor quality evidence, whilst numerous health issues remain unresolved – and no matter how many press releases the Royal Australasian College of Physicians disseminate via the pathetic, unquestioning mainstream media, these facts hold true. The resulting questions are tough, and so they bloody well should be. We will not be intimidated by medical thuggery; and neither should you.

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

4 thoughts on “Running Scared: The Royal Australasian College of Physicians

  1. Permission to post from Professor Peckham.

    As a Professor and Health Researcher I find pro-fluoridationists’ characterisation of those opposed to fluoridation as “quacks” offensive.

    My work is supported by the UK Department of Health, I am a member of the UK Faculty of Public Health and have a number of funded research projects from the National Institutes for Health Research in the UK.

    I have consistently opposed fluoridation policy due to the poor evidence base on its effectiveness, genuine concerns about potential health problems (requiring further research) and, therefore, the fact that imposing fluoridation is unethical.

    Professor Stephen Peckham BSc. MA(Econ)., HMFPH
    Director, Centre for Health Services Studies
    Professor of Health Policy
    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

    Director, Policy Research Unit in Commissioning and the Healthcare System
    University of Kent
    George Allen Wing
    CT2 7NF

    Critical Public Health
    Slaying sacred cows: is it time to pull the plug on water fluoridation? Stephen Peckham
    Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK
    Version of record first published: 15 Nov 2011
    To cite this article: Stephen Peckham (2012): Slaying sacred cows: is it time to pull the plug on water fluoridation?, Critical Public Health, 22:2, 159-177
    To link to this article:

  2. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians as part of The Fluoridation Cartel should be exposed for the bloody crooks that they all are – chronically poisoning on mass – our people, pets and environment with dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium etc.. too dangerous to be dumped anywhere but the Gods in White Coats say it’s safe and effective safe and effective as part of their Web of Deception/Propaganda.

    If any other person dumped this into the water supplies they would be imprisoned of that there is no doubt.

    We the people have had more than enough of the filth of the conflicts of interests/corruption in the Fluoridation Fraud / Fluoridation Cartel $$$$$$$$$$$$$

    News regarding the  disgraceful conflict of interests of VICE-President of British Fluoridation Society  from  Doug Cross  UK Councils Against Fluoridation

The hasty resignation of Andy Burnham from the British Fluoridation Society does not signal a retreat over the imposition of water fluoridation.
Doug Cross UKCAF 15th June 2009
The appointment of Andy Burnham, MP, Vice-President of the British Fluoridation Society (BFS), as Secretary of State for Health has revealed to the public just how dangerously out of touch the Prime Minister has become with public concerns. The revelation of Mr Burnham’s close relationship with the BFS on Tuesday last, apparently undisclosed in the Parliamentary Register of Members’ Interests, led to the immediate announcement of his resignation from the BFS.
But he came bouncing back, unapologetic and fighting mad, with an outburst of brazen aggression that will surely have shaken any health professional who lives by the ethical code underlying the practice of medicine. At the National Health Service Confederation’s annual conference in Liverpool Mr Burnham said that the Government had been too timid at times on the public health agenda, and exhorted the delegates to ignore public opposition to water fluoridation, saying “ don’t feel you have to wait for permission to invest in prevention . . . Let’s press ahead with fluoridation of water supplies, given the clear evidence that it can improve children’s dental health.”
Website and pdf file available here:-
     Doug  Cross Environmental Analyst and Forensic Ecologist   Website

Print version ISSN 0042-9686
Bull World Health Organ vol.83 no.9 Genebra Sept. 2005  
The effective use of fluorides in public health
Sheila JonesI,1; Brian A. BurtII; Poul Erik PetersenIII; Michael A. LennonIV
IBritish Fluoridation Society, Ward 4, Booth Hall Children’s Hospital, Charlestown Road, Manchester M9 7AA, England 
IIDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, USA 
IIIOral Health Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland 
IVDepartment of Oral Health and Development, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, England
Competing interests: Sheila Jones is a paid officer of the British Fluoridation Society – a not-for-profit organization funded largely by United Kingdom government health promotion grants to support water fluoridation initiatives. Michael A. Lennon is unpaid Chairman of the British Fluoridation Society.

    Censored! The British Fluoridation Society’s attempt to suppress information.
How the Dental profession and the BFS tried to silence inconvenient evidence. Doug Cross, 15 June, 2009.

    UK Government Health Departments fund the British Fluoridation Society

    Fluoride, Gingivitis & Oral Cancer 
© 2002 PFPC 
Gingivitis and periodontal disease are the oral diseases requiring most urgent intervention. Over 90% of the U.S. population over 13 is affected. Strong links have been made to heart disease and low birth weight and infant mortality. For heart disease the association with gingivitis is stronger than the one for smoking or high cholesterol. As heart disease is the #1 killer in the US, many efforts are undertaken to reduce this alarming figure. In Canada large pictures of a diseased heart are placed on cigarette packs alerting to the fact that smoking causes heart disease. 
It is of great importance that warning labels and pictures of periodontal disease, oral cancer, diseased hearts, pituitary and thyroid glands, as well as Alzheimer’s brains – just to name a few – are placed on all oral care products containing fluoride. 
    Patents by the pharmaceutical company Sepracor disclose that concentrations of fluorides from fluoridated toothpastes and mouthwashes activate G proteins in the oral cavity, thereby promoting gingivitis and periodontitis, as well as oral cancer. Incomprehensibly, this vital information is being withheld from the public by all parties involved, including the company, at least two well-known Universities, and numerous oral disease experts. THIS INCLUDES A MUCH-DECORATED ADA SCIENTIST WHO WAS INVOLVED IN SETTING THE CDC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FLUORIDE INTAKE IN CHILDREN, SERVED AS HEAD OF A FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SUBCOMMITTEE THAT DECIDES WHICH DENTAL PRODUCTS TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND WHO CHAIRED THE PANEL ON SAFE USE OF FLUORIDE FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL . (CDC, 2001)

    Suppression of data documenting fluoride’s adverse health effects and lack of benefit is wide-spread 

Scientists and professionals have been persecuted, censorsed, or harassed when they oppose water fluoridation. 

Unfortunately, fluoride toxicity has been a “faut pas” for many years, and anybody discussing this topic would be suspected to belong to the antifluoridation movement. Thus, the recently published Environmental Health Criteria 36 on Fluorine and Fluorides (WHO, 1989) only superficially discusses chronic toxicity, while beneficial effects and safety margins are dealt with in detail. As Temporary Adviser I was present at most of the Task Group meeting when the document was finalized. In accordance with the official fluoridation policy, information which could cast any doubt on the advantage of fluoride supplements was left out by the Task Group. Unless 1 had been present myself, I would have found it hard to believe. Thus, I am pleased that you have taken a personal interest in the problems of chronic fluoride toxicity. 
Philippe Granjean, M.D. 


By Wade Frazier

    Brief extract: In the fluoridation issue, the same conflicts of interest and corruption that pervade organized medicine are clearly seen.  The AMA has never has had much to do with promoting the public’s well being, instead promoting cigarettes and helping to cover up health disasters.  That dynamic can also be found in the American Dental Association (ADA), where its financial relationship with candy companies is similar to the relationship the AMA had for generations with the tobacco interests.  In 1995, the ADA received 15% of its money from trade groups such as the Sugar Association, Coca-Cola, and M & M.  The ADA actively promotes compulsory fluoridation.  The ADA was also guilty of stating that the ACLU endorsed fluoridation when it in fact did not.[34]  Since 1993, the ADA has had to drop many organizations from its list of fluoridation supporters, including the EPA.[35]
Much research from many parts of the world has suggested that, far from protecting teeth, fluoride actually damages them. One of the largest studies into fluoride levels and dental caries ever carried out comes from Japan. In this study, researchers at Tokyo Medical and Dental University examined the teeth of 20,000 students and showed clearly that they had been harmed by fluoride.
And now, as I write this in 2000, THE GOVERNMENT-FUNDED BRITISH FLUORIDATION SOCIETY is actively lobbying for a change in the law here to compel water companies to fluoridate tap water when Health Authorities demand it.
Document sourced:
July 23, 2011
    Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970′s, THE DENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC) HAVE COMPLETELY CONTROLLED THE AGENCY’S STANCE SUPPORTING WATER FLUORIDATION.  No CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency’s position.
The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC’s and EPA’s fluoride safety statements, which appear at odds with current scientific knowledge.
Why Dentists Are Big Political Players
Why Dentists Are Big Political.player ..”: “Wall Street Journal says Dentists Are Big Political Players and do all they can to preserve their monopoly.”
They boasted the largest single health-care PAC in 2008, gave nearly $13 million to state and local politicians in 2010, raising the question: What do dentists want? Alicia Mundy has details on The News Hub. Photo: Reuters.!4ADDACA4-8F50-43D4-B694-D541A38FBF3A
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation Inc. (NYSCOF) shared a link “Dental Crisis in America”: “AFTER 67 YEARS OF WATER FLUORIDATION AMERICA IS FACING A DENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. The American Dental Association does not support this comprehensive legislation introduced by Senator Sanders because it includes funding for Dental Therapists which would infringe upon dentistry’s lucrative monopoly.”

Dental Crisis in America

    Fluoridated Toothpaste:-
Australian Government did this – All S5 POISON LABELS on fluoride toothpaste were removed, not for your health reason, no, it was to help commercial SALES that superceded the health and rightful Government protection of Australian people.
Full document here:
    FLUORIDE-GATE cover-up
    DENNIS STEVENSON IS A FORMER PARLIAMENTARIAN AND MEMBER OF THE ACT LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ‘FLUORIDATION INQUIRY’ (1989-91). The majority of inquiry members would not report the scientific, medical, dental and court evidence received in worldwide submissions proving that fluoridation causes disease, deaths, tooth decay and is useless and environmentally destructive. Dennis put this evidence in a 177 page Dissenting Report, part of this major government report, but longer than the 131 page section which attempted to suppress the evidence.


    50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

    THE STRONG EVIDENCE AGAINST THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF THE PRACTICE OF FLUORIDATING PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES CONTINUES TO BE IGNORED BY THOSE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES. The disingenuous actions of some scientist advocates of fluoridation and the general antipathy of science journals toward open examination of the subject raises serious questions regarding the objectivity constantly proclaimed for science. Perhaps the weight of evidence cited by proponents refers to the physical weight of the endorsements and not to a preponderance of scientific evidence.
* Reprinted with permission, from American Laboratory, volume 12, number 9, page 10, 1980 by International Scientific Communications, Inc.
Full document:

Poison is Treatment: The Campaign to Fluoridate America by Professor James F. Tracy
Global Research, June 23, 2012

  3. *It is also time this government is sued for treason against Australia**….*

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s