NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

Draft NHMRC Information Paper: Effects of water fluoridation on dental and other health outcomes submission

ID: 
11
This submission reflects the views of
Individual Background: 
Former MP - Instrumental in having Fluoride no longer mandatory in Qld.
Personal Details
First Name: 
Jason
Last Name: 
Woodforth
Specific Questions
Q1. A) Is the draft Information Paper presented in a manner that is easy to understand? : 
Disagree
Q1. B) Please provide details regarding your response to Question 1A: 
Overview of the NHMRC process

Your draft paper clearly shows that you have your answer already, your draft paper is full of the same lies from prevoius such studies. Not once do you mention that the fluoride we use is a TOXIC WASTE CHEMICAL, your paper is full of lies and if you dare, put me on the list of people to speak at the committee hearing. 

Water Fluoridation and dental effects – Tooth decay

Tooth decay is diet related, pure and simple. Wake up to the [NHMRC has removed offensive information] you are pushing. 

Q2. A) Is it clear how NHMRC reviewed the health and dental effects of water fluoridation? : 
Agree
Q2. B) Please provide details regarding you response to Question 2A: 

Yes it is clear you used the same lies that you have always used. It's TOXIC WASTE, what bit of that do you not get! The people deserve better than this!

Q3. A) Is the Fluoride Reference Group’s interpretation of the evidence clearly described in the draft Information Paper?: 
Agree
Q3. B) Please provide details regarding your response to Question 3A: 

Yes it is clear that they can read manipulated data, and agree on the lies put to them.

Q4. Is there additional evidence on the dental effects of water fluoridation that should be considered?: 

Yes, why is the no reference to what we actually put in the water! That is TOXIC WASTE! You should all be ashamed of yourselves. What does the toxic waste include? Have you even researched this?

Q5. Is there additional evidence on any other health effects of water fluoridation that should be considered in the draft Information Paper?: 

Yes, you should look at the other side, work by the likes of Dr Geoff Pain, but you don't you simply debunk any study that does not support your corrupt view. If your view is not corrupt then it is dumb, i just hope it is corrupt as i can live with that, i just can't live with stupidity from our leaders.

Q6. Is there any other supporting material relevant to making decisions on water fluoridation in the Australian context that should be considered in the draft Information Paper?: 

There is plenty, but it is from the side that you don't support and simply debunk, there is no point showing you any of this, you will just say, oh that is not peer reviewed, it was not scientific blah blah blah. If you don't look you won't find is not the mentality that you should be taking.

Page reviewed: 4 July, 2017