The situation, as summarised in the above article, epitomises how the criminals who promote and implement fluoridation programs continue to get away with their crimes against the people, even after decades of unsubstantiated propaganda. As long as agencies that are charged with enforcing checks and balances on those in power fail to stand up to the bullies and cartel crony kingpins of fluoridation, nothing will change.
The Advertising Standards Authority (NZ) can now join the long list of those who – as history will attest – are worthy of nothing more than hanging their heads in shame on this issue. Let’s briefly look at the propaganda claims that were supposedly ‘examined’ thoroughly by the Advertising Standards Authority and ruled to have been ‘substantiated’:
Claim 1: Fluoridation “makes a huge difference in reducing tooth decay, particularly for children.”
Claim 2: Fluoridation “is safe.”
On July 9th, 2013, the Otago Daily Times featured an article, citing University of Otago researchers now openly admitting that the New Zealand population – despite being exposed for many decades to fluoridation – has not been adequately monitored for potential developmental health effects; and only now is data being collated to look for potential adverse impacts (5). This simply confirmed what researchers and critics of fluoridation have been highlighting for decades; i.e. the disturbing lack of primary health data on the potential impacts of fluoridation.
For instance, as pointed out by Cheng et al. (2007) in the British Medical Journal, “Given the certainty with which water fluoridation has been promoted and opposed, and the large number (around 3200) of research papers identified (by the York Review), the reviewers were surprised by the poor quality of the evidence and the uncertainty surrounding the beneficial and adverse effects of fluoridation” (6). “Is safe,” as per the aforementioned advertisement, is an absolute statement that makes no mention of this scientific uncertainty.
As noted by risk assessment expert and former National Research Council Panelist, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, “water fluoridation at 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. In addition to the “known” adverse health effects of dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and increased risk of bone fracture, “anticipated” adverse health effects from fluoride exposure or community water fluoridation include (but are not limited to) carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, endocrine effects, increased blood lead levels, and hypersensitivity (reduced tolerance) to fluoride” (7). Other NRC Panelists have also expressed similar concerns (8), whilst more recently, Choi et al. (2012) were not prepared to state that “no risk is present” with water fluoridation (9).
The Advertising Standards Authority (NZ) obviously did not want to ask the hard questions surrounding ‘Margin of Safety’ (10), nor did it see the need to acknowledge the dearth of primary health data in fluoridating nations (11), or address the point raised by Barbier et al. (2010) that, “Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its “good reputation” for preventing caries via topical application and in dental toothpastes. However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses” (12).
Instead, they chose to blindly trust the governmental advertising body as an “expert in the area due to its role” and therefore do not question its claims any further, despite the fraudulent claim to the contrary that the claims were “substantiated.”
Claim 3: Fluoridation “provides an affordable benefit to everyone.”
Returning once more to Cheng et al. (2007), we quickly discover the truth that yet again, the evidence for this claim is dodgy or non-existent, at best: “Water fluoridation aims to reduce social inequalities in dental health, but few relevant studies exist” (6). And, from the authors of the York Review, “The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” (13) – a point well noted by Dr. Thiessen in a recent Blount County presentation (14).