Q1. A) Is the draft Information Paper presented in a manner that is easy to understand? :
Q2. A) Is it clear how NHMRC reviewed the health and dental effects of water fluoridation? :
Q2. B) Please provide details regarding you response to Question 2A:
The NHMRC deliberately excluded consideration of essential science by making ridiculous exclusion criteria.
Q3. A) Is the Fluoride Reference Group’s interpretation of the evidence clearly described in the draft Information Paper?:
Q3. B) Please provide details regarding your response to Question 3A:
The FRG's interpretation of the tiny amount of selected evidence is biased due to the composition of the panel.
Q5. Is there additional evidence on any other health effects of water fluoridation that should be considered in the draft Information Paper?:
See all the references supplied in answer to Question 1. plus these highly relevant papers. 2016 letter to the National Governors Association from consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, water specialist Robert Bowcock, and “elite” whistleblower attorney Michael D. Kohn (lobbying & advocacy) http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/brockovich-2016.pdf 2016 letter to the American Thyroid Association from Richard Shames, MD, et al. (endocrine disruption & cancer) http://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf 2015 letter to Institute of Medicine from Erin Brockovich, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, “super lawyer” David P. Matthews, et. al. (contraindications & safety): https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf 2015 IAOMT position paper opposing fluoridation (toxicity & carcinogenicity): https://iaomt.org/iaomt-position-fluoridation/ 2014 Canadian legal memo and scientific affidavit of 2006 NRC panelist, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen (disproportionate harm & susceptible populations): http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Fluoridation-Lega... 2016 Fluoride, Chloramine & Lead Resource Sheet (bad for people, pipes, and planet): http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/pdf-documents/Flu... 2016 Comment on Oral Health Coalition thesis (intimidation & deception): https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxPjobYjirCIMDdEaF90WE44VzQ Video showing the [NHMRC has removed third party information] acknowledgement, behind closed doors, of the harms of Fluoridation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjSp3Bzgu4I&feature=youtu.be
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?:
Work by real scientists using high technology has debunked the theory that Fluoride has any value in mineralization or remineralization of tooth enamel. See for example the excellent work of Professor of Dentistry Mitsuo Kakei and his coworkers Aspects Regarding Fluoride Treatment for Reinforcement and Remineralization of Apatite Crystals Journal of Hard Tissue Biology 21[3] (2012) p257-266 These workers found that "fluorapatite crystals were not generated by daily intake of F ions in developing rat tooth enamel. A differential gas pressure method demonstrated that the harmfulness of F exposure during the nucleation process of calcified hard tissues was much greater than that of Cd exposure. These results demonstrate that F treatments have no effect on improving crystal quality or remineralization and are inconsistent with the purpose of public health." Similarly, real scientists using advanced technology have shown that exposure of tooth enamel to Fluoride produces, at most, only 6nm depth of fluoride attachment and this is likely an over-estimate because surface roughness and increasing crater diameter during ion ablation increases the apparent depth of penetration. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49621915_Elemental_Depth_Profil... Failure to consider excellent reviews of Fluoride Toxicology is negligent. See for example the excellent review by Barbier et al https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45281342_Molecular_mechanisms_o...