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: 
44
This submission reflects the views of
Organisation Name: 
Citizens against fluoridation Inc. Port Macquarie
Personal Details
Specific Questions
Q1. B) Please provide details regarding your response to Question 1A: 
Plain Language Summary

 

 

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

 

 

 

A Personal RESPONSE

 

 

 

 

BY

 

 

 

 

 

dR. [NHMRC has removed personal information about the submitter]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(12 October, 2016)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NHMRC has removed personal information about the submitter]

.

objectives:

Current evaluation of the evidence on the health effects of water fluoridation

The stated objectives of the current evaluation of the evidence (2016 NHMRC Evidence Evaluation) are:

  1. To critically appraise the Cochrane review by Iheozor-Ejiofor et al3  published on 18 June 2015 whose objectives are:
    1. To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) for the prevention of dental caries.
    2. To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on dental fluorosis.
  2. To undertake a systematic review to identify and evaluate evidence on the possible health effects of water fluoridation not covered by the above Cochrane review.

The NHMRC appointed a team from the University of Sydney to undertake this evaluation.

 

1.  Personal Background and my changing views on fluoridation:

 

I am a [NHMRC has removed personal information about the submitter] year old retired scientist with M.Sc. and Ph.D. (Canada) degrees in geology. I taught and conducted experimental research at [NHMRC has removed personal information about the submitter]. My family lived in Sydney from [NHMRC has removed personal information about the submitter]. My wife and I were exposed to fluoridated water over this period.

 

My family had an excellent dentist in Sydney. He was passionate about water fluoridation and fervently believed that it reduced tooth decay. We all received regular check-ups and an annual tooth swab with a fluoride “varnish”. We had no reason to question the advice of our dentist.

 

From [NHMRC has removed personal information about the submitter] to the present my wife and I have lived in the Port Macquarie Local Government Area which was unfluoridated until February, 2012. Since living in the Port Macquarie LGA we have been drinking rain water collected in our own tanks.

 

Possible personal health effects due to 29 years of fluoride exposure:

 

During the last few years living in Sydney I personally experienced frequent, sharp pain in my heels when transferring weight onto my feet on rising from bed in the mornings. A male friend, 10 years my senior, experienced similar symptoms and was informed by his doctor that “spurs” were probably to blame. Neither of us suspected early signs of possible fluorosis effects and a probable connection with water fluoridation. My symptoms have not recurred since retiring to the Port Macquarie LGA and drinking mostly unfluoridated water.

 

In 2014 my wife and I discovered that we suffer from hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) and are now taking thyroid supplements in an attempt to normalise thyroid function. We suspect that our thyroid glands were impaired by 29 years of exposure to Sydney’s fluoridated drinking water. Since living in the Port Macquarie LGA we have been drinking mainly rain water collected in our own tanks.

 

I personally have elevated blood pressure and am abnormally sensitive to cold conditions. The latter, together with depressed body temperature early in the morning are acknowledged symptoms of underactive thyroid function. I suspect this condition impacts negatively on my blood pressure and general feeling of wellbeing.

 

# 2. NHMRC’s Biased and selective REVIEW methodology:

 

I find it extremely concerning that a 2015 study (of 95 % of the British population) by Peckham et. al. has been “culled” by your Health Effects Review process, arguably because it was “not of sufficient quality”. This “litmus test” study revealed higher levels of hypothyroidism (perhaps up to 30 % (?)) in fluoridated areas of Britain. Rather than culling this paper out, NHMRC should have highlighted the findings as being of potentially grave concern, and recommended comprehensive and properly controlled studies to establish the truth. To simply conclude there is no proven evidence of harm in relation to the effect of fluoride on the thyroid gland is at best a cop-out, and at worst a failure of duty-of-care responsibility to the public.

 

Undiagnosed hypothyroidism may well be rife in largely fluoridated Australia and other Anglophile countries (e.g. USA, Canada & New Zealand) which fluoridate their municipal drinking water supplies. We need to know, and it is the NHMRC’s duty to lead and find out. Fluoride was used before 1950 to treat hyperthyroidism, often successfully and also disastrously. Common sense suggests that for persons considered to have “normal” thyroid function, unnecessary additional fluoride “treatment” should promote hypothyroidism. Clearly, the depressing effect of fluoride on the thyroid gland and its linkage to fatigue has been known for a long time.

 

The NHMRC’s Review process relating to fluoride reveals a reactive/defensive mindset, rather than a pro-active approach that seeks to get to the bottom of health issues and thereby improve health outcomes. Where is NHMRC’s objectivity? And where is the necessary duty-of-care desire to protect fellow citizens from needless harm? It is my gut feeling that a raft of unnecessary medical suffering could be substantially reduced by removing fluoride waste chemicals from municipal water supplies. A substantial reduction in the national health budget might also be anticipated.

 

Trivialising hypothyroidism and failing to vigorously address other suspected/feasible/probable (?) links between water fluoridation with, say, premature births, premature still births and still births, as well as cancer is inexcusable. The NHMRC’s bias is guided by a defensive “if you don’t look you won’t find” attitude. Preservation of the Water Fluoridation Policy is more important to the NHMRC than legitimate health concerns. It is evident to me as a trained scientist that the NHMRC has lost its way and also its credibility.

 

NHMRC’s narrow and time-restricted REVIEW process conveniently disallows consideration of OLD EVIDENCE which is VALID and may contradict recent, lower quality findings that suggest “no harm”. Dr. I. Rapaport’s initial (1956) and confirmatory 1959 (in I. Rapaport: “Mongolism and Fluoridated Drinking Water”; The Bull. Of the Natl. Acad. Of Med. of France, V. 143, p. 367) findings on Down’s Syndrome is a case in point. Results from Rapaport’s 1959 study are reproduced below from p. 240 in Dr. G. L. Waldbott’s 1965 book, “A Struggle With Titans” :

 

FREQUENCY OF MONGOLISM IN ILLINOIS TOWNS OF 10,000 TO 100,000              (JANUARY 1, 1950 TO DECEMBER 31, 1956)

Total No. of Births    [F] in Water      No. per     Cases of Mongolism                                                     PPM                 100,000             

         196,186              0.0 – 0.2            34.15                67                                70,111               0.3 – 0.7            47.07                 33                              67,053               1.0 – 2.6             71.59                48

 

Rapaport’s 1959 study covered 5.5 million people, 335,000 births and 148 cases of mongolism. This repeat study addressed previous criticisms and involved tight sampling controls with the assistance and cooperation of local Health officials.

 

Although the repeated study confirmed the link between fluoridated water consumption and a higher incidence of Down’s Syndrome, the Federal US PHS attempted to discredit both the study and Dr. Rapaport’s reputation. This was scurrilous and unprofessional behaviour.

 

It is scientifically unacceptable and grossly negligent to ignore or trivialise VALID scientific evidence, regardless of when such findings were published. Valid data remains VALID.

 

Rappaport’s 1959 study remains highly relevant. Down’s Syndrome is understood to be due to DNA damage, and fluoride is able to initiate/exacerbate DNA damage. Furthermore, Downs Syndrome is characterised by IQ impairment, and IQ HARM in children has been reported in many recent studies, particularly out of China. Only as late as 2014 has fluoride been officially classified as a neurotoxin, together with other recognised industrial elements/chemicals (cf. The Lancet, v. 13, pp 330-338). Additionally, fluorine-based anaesthetics are obviously responsible for post-operative dementia in some patients undergoing long surgical procedures. This latter demonstration of fluorine’s neurotoxicity for some individuals receives virtually no publicity. Why is this?

 

The essential message here is that all individuals are unique and have different sensitivities to toxic elements like fluorine, lead and arsenic etc. Clearly, Health Authorities must endeavour to understand the processes involved and ensure maximum health protection for all citizens, including the most sensitive and vulnerable members of society.

 

# 3. Other Reviews – What Value?:

 

The undisclosed and real purpose of NHMRC’s present and past REVIEWS has been to justify continuation of an obsolete and erroneous proposition that drinking water containing 1 ppm fluoride reduces tooth decay in children and adults without causing other health impacts.

 

Not surprisingly, a chorus of dissenting conclusions has been reached by a number of independent reviews on water fluoridation.

 

In 1991, the ACT’s Legislative Council commissioned an Inquiry into Water Fluoridation and recommended its rejection following a careful review of the “pros- and cons-“. The recommendations were sidelined and ACT citizens are now fluoridated.

 

In 2003 the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) released its Position Paper on Water Fluoridation. It concluded that ingestion of fluoride should ideally be ZERO. This paper rejects the claim that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay. It also concludes that fluoridation presents unacceptable health risks.

 

Finally, Connett et. al.’s 2010 book, “The Case Against Fluoride” was written to challenge claims by Anglophile governments that fluoride reduces tooth decay and causes no proven harm. This book was written by senior scientists and comprehensively deals with issues of efficacy and potential harm due to water fluoridation. Water Fluoridation is condemned as a misguided and harmful policy.

 

Pioneering medical practitioners Dr. G. Waldbott (USA) and Dr. H. Moolenburgh (Netherlands) were fierce opponents of fluoridation decades earlier. Both of these physicians had personal involvement in studies exploring the short and longer term harms resulting from fluoridation of municipal water supplies. Informed dental practitioners Dr. John Colquhoun (New Zealand) and Dr. P.R.N. Sutton (Australia) have also been fierce opponents of fluoridation. Dr Doug Everingham, Minister for Health in the Whitlam government, became an opponent of water fluoridation after his department could not provide him with evidence that fluoride was harmless.

 

The above contributions reveal a web of deception, lies and cover-ups by Anglophile governments and their respective health departments since the mid-1940’s. The big “winners” are the fluoride-polluting industries that have transferred the dollar costs of fluoride waste disposal to municipal councils and their ratepayers. Pro-fluoride advocacy also helps to deflect negative criticism away from the sugar industry. And a plethora of marketed fluoridated dental products are clearly profitable for Colgate-Palmolive which also sponsors a Colgate Professorship in Sydney University’s Dentistry Faculty through a partnership established in 2006.

 

The current [NHMRC has removed third party information] is held by [NHMRC has removed third party information] who delivered a pro-fluoridation presentation to a Port Macquarie-Hastings Council Forum on [NHMRC has removed third party information], with [NHMRC has removed third party information] in attendance. [NHMRC has removed third party information] showed sensationalist slides of a child’s deciduous teeth rotted down to the gum lines, thus emphasising the “need” for council to fluoridate the local water supply. Although extremely emotive, the wrong message was given. It had nothing to do with fluoride. Sugar was responsible!

 

The Colgate-University of Sydney Dental Partnership raises a serious question relating to a potential conflict-of-interest for Sydney University and staff in its Dental Faculty. Additionally, NHMRC’s appointment of a team from the U. of Sydney, already known to strongly support water fluoridation, seriously questions the chosen team’s ability to objectively and fairly undertake:

 

“A systematic review to identify and evaluate evidence on the possible health effects of water fluoridation not covered by the above Cochrane review.”

 

Finally, the NHMRC’s failure to choose genuinely independent review panellists, including essential experts in biochemistry and scientific risk analysis, undermines the credibility of [NHMRC has removed defamatory information] as well as the NHMRC.

 

A brief look at fluoride’s troubled history is essential. It reveals how fluoride-polluting industries and the US Public Health Service (PHS) colluded to find a “positive” image for fluoride prior to 1950 when Water Fluoridation was adopted by the US PHS.

 

# 3.  The Water Fluoridation Experiment:

 

The Water Fluoridation experiment originated in the US in the mid-1940’s in response to a pressing need to resolve industry’s growing fluoride pollution problem affecting air and water. This Water Fluoridation experiment was imported to Beaconsfield, Tasmania in 1953 shortly before ALCOA was invited to construct its first Australian aluminium smelter at Bell Bay, a few miles distant. In this case water fluoridation preceded the establishment of a fluoride polluting industry; in the US it was typically the other way around. The NHMRC was left out of the loop on this occasion. By the early 1960’s Tasmanian Health officials were claiming children who had grown up with fluoride had “the best teeth in the state.”

 

# 4. Brief Historical Background:

 

Rapid industrial expansion around the commencement of World War 2 led to increasing levels of fluoride pollution of air and water in the late 1930’s to mid-1940’s. In 1939 G. Cox, an industrial researcher hired by the Mellon Institute and funded by Alcoa, suggested a “solution” to the growing pollution problem by adding fluoride [NHMRC has removed defamatory information] to municipal water supplies to achieve a 1 ppm fluoride concentration. In 1950 Cox and Hodge concluded in an 8-point summary, “there is no other known toxic effect of drinking water containing 1 ppm fluoride than the ‘very mild’ mottling of the teeth.”(The journal of the American Dental Association, April Edition, 1950). [NHMRC has removed defamatory information].

 

The US Public Health Service researcher H.T. Dean, [NHMRC has removed defamatory information], provided the necessary “fix”. In 1942, Dean and two co-authors, reporting in Public Health Reports 57 (No. 32, pp. 1155-79), presented data claiming that fluoride in drinking water at around 1 ppm concentration reduces dental caries significantly and causes only minor dental fluorosis. This has become the so-called “optimal” fluoride concentration frequently quoted.

 

Dean et. al.’s 1942 REPORT was based on a sampling of 7,257 selected 12-14 year old white children from 21  cities in 4 US states accessing water supplies with fluoride contents between 0 and around 2.6 ppm. In 1981 R. Ziegelbecker, an Austrian statistician, re-examined Dean’s claimed ‘inverse relationship’ between the incidence of dental caries and fluoride content using all the data he could find from the US and Europe. The ‘inverse relationship’ claimed by Dean et. al. was shown to be false, although a strong relationship between the incidence and severity of dental fluorosis against fluoride content in drinking water was confirmed.

 

# 5. Reluctance by governments to disclose Dental Decay Data that contradict claims of efficacy:

 

USA:  The Early Newburgh-Kingston (New York, USA) Trial :

 

Importantly, the control city of Kingston remained unfluoridated over an entire 50 year timeframe and this allowed meaningful comparison with the Newburgh community fluoridated continuously since 1945.

At the commencement of the study in 1945, unfluoridated Kingston (the CONTROL) had 5,303 children examined and fluoridated Newburgh had 4,959 children, both spanning 7 to 14 years of age.

 

Connett et. al. (2010, pages 52-54) have reviewed the outcome of this trial using data sourced from Kumar and Green (1998).  The 4 plots shown in Connett’s Figure 7.4 (page 53) summarise mean DMFT comparisons between fluoridated Newburgh and unfluoridated Kingston (control) communities for 7 to 14 year old children for the years 1945 (at commencement), 1955 (10 years later), 1986 (41 years later) and 1995 (50 years later).

 

The results are reproduced graphically as FIG A. The four plots were sourced from Connett et. al. (2010, page 53)

 

Apart from similar overall improvements in decay outcomes (i.e. decreasing slopes with time) for both communities over the 50 years, there are NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES in mean DMFT outcomes between the two communities sampled in 1945, 1986 and 1995. These 3 consecutive data sets demonstrate the ineffectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental decay.

 

However, the mean DMFT versus AGE plot for 1955 is grossly anomalous because it contradicts the consistent data sets for 1986 and 1995. The 1955 data set unequivocally implies that children in fluoridated Newburgh scored approximately 1 to 2 DMFT score units lower than the 7 to 14 year old children from unfluoridated Kingston. [NHMRC has removed third party defamatory information].

 

The fluoridation trials in Newburgh, N.Y., Grand Rapids, Mich. And Brantford, Ont., had been underway for only 4 years when [NHMRC hs removed third party information] the P.H.S. [NHMRC hs removed third party information], gave fluoridation the green light: 58 % reduction in tooth decay was claimed. Health officials were to approach city councils with the question ‘what are we waiting for?’ The fluoridation policy was officially launched in 1950.

The timing for release of the 1955 Newburgh-Kingston (New York) data set was important for US health authorities. Logically, this was a key data set when an improvement could have been expected after a decade of “trialing” – provided water fluoridation was significantly reducing dental decay. These 1955 “findings” would have been welcome “confirmatory news” to the US Public Health Service.

 

However the full-term Newburgh-Kingston trial results over 50 years unambiguously contradicts the US Public Health Services claim that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay. There was no going back.

 

USA – Large population Studies – 1985 & 1988

 

In 1985 the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) in the US claimed an 18 % reduction in dental caries for 84 fluoridated communities collectively comprising 39,207 children. The results were not voluntarily released for public scrutiny, but were later obtained via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

 

In 1988 NIDR released results of a second National Survey. Biochemist and anti-fluoridation activist Dr. John Yiamouyiannis demanded access to the primary data and was refused, only later to obtain access via FOI. Yiamouyiannis was then able to demonstrate from the primary data that there was NO DIFFERENCE in decay outcomes between regions that were artificially fluoridated from regions that were not fluoridated. Deliberate fraud was demonstrated.

 

FIG B (see attachment) shows a plot of the National Institute of Dental Research’s (NIDR) study for an aggregate 39,207 5 to 17 year Old children/adolescents from fluoridated (F), partly fluoridated (PF) and non-fluoridated (NF) communities from 84 US cities.  

 

Australia Nationally – 2004-6 :

 

In 2004-2006 a National Survey of dental outcomes for children and adults was carried out under the direction of Professor John Spencer at the University of Adelaide. The results of this survey were made available on private request via FOI. In this period, all Australian states with the exception of Queensland (only Townsville was fluoridated representing 5 % of QLD’s population) were fluoridated with large majorities of citizens fluoridated within individual states.

 

A meaningful comparison between essentially unfluoridated Queensland and long fluoridated sister states was thus possible. The 2004-06 dental outcomes for Queenslanders were NO WORSE statistically than for citizens living in fluoridated states. Again, the ineffectiveness of Water Fluoridation in reducing decay was proven.

 

This data is presented in a Table shown in FIG C.

 

Smaller studies are at high risk for delivering misleading and/or unreliable outcomes. This problem was examined in detail by Victorian dentist (now deceased) Dr. P.R.N. Sutton in his 1996 book, “The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation”.

 

The 2004-06 Australian National Study contradicted an earlier small study by Slade, Spencer, Davies and Stewart (1996) who compared decay data for fluoridated Townsville with unfluoridated Brisbane. Slade et al. claimed “the children of Townsville had 32 to 55% fewer tooth surfaces affected with caries, when compared to the children of Brisbane.”  A major contradiction is apparent, [NHMRC has removed third party defamatory information].

 

It is noteworthy that the above-mentioned American and Australian dental surveys were undertaken by governments and presumably specialist dental teams chosen by government. The demonstrated reluctance by governments to voluntarily release information damaging to the efficacy of Water Fluoridation, implies a failure in duty-of-care towards citizens’ general health and a deep-seated guilt and/or sensitivity to potential liability because Water Fluoridation is NOT DELIVERING THE “CARIES REDUCING BENEFIT” that is claimed.

 

NSW Dental Survey for 12 year Old Children - 2000:

 

Around 2000 NSW Health was warning Port Macquarie-Hastings Council that mid-North Coast towns had “a dental crisis” and were missing out on the caries-reducing benefit offered by water fluoridation. In 2000, a comprehensive Dental Survey of 12 y.o. children in metropolitan Sydney and in regional areas of NSW was made public.

 

The results for metropolitan Sydney divisions and regional areas of NSW are tabulated in FIG D (see attachments).

 

In 2004, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council asked NSW Health to advise on “whether there was a strong case for introducing water fluoridation” to the local LGA. An FOI request for the Minutes of NSW Health’s Fluoridation Advisory Committee Meetings in relation to Port Macquarie reveals that the results of the recent NSW Dental Health Survey of 2000 were not considered at all. This should have been done in order to answer council’s official request. Fluoridation was recommended without minuted discussion. [NHMRC has removed third party information], a trained dentist and dedicated promoter for water fluoridation throughout [NHMRC has removed third party information], was a member of that Committee.

 

If the above process had not been deliberately hijacked, the Fluoride Advisory Committee would have discovered that the unfluoridated mid-north Coast had better dental outcomes than 80 % of 12 y.o. children within the Sydney metropolitan area, as the accompanying NSW 2000 Table (FIG C) reveals.

 

Regarding the NSW 2000 Dental Survey, only 3 of 17 data sets (showing both DMFT and % DMFT= 0 variables) had sample populations below 1000. A total of 45,358 children were sampled, yielding an average sample size of 2,668 children. This survey has every appearance of being believable and free of bias.

 

A NSW 2007 Child Dental Survey (for DMFT only) followed reorganisation of regional Health Management into larger Area Health Service (AHS) divisions, with accompanying changes to regional boundaries. Summary 2007 data for 5-6 y.o. and 11-12 y.o. children are publicly available. On this occasion, totals of 2,095 and 2418 children were sampled from 8 regions, yielding an average sample population of 262 for 5-6 y.o. children and 302 for 11 -12 y.o. children, respectively. For 11-12 y.o. children, average sampling sizes were reduced by 88.7 % compared to the 2000 dental survey.

 

The 2007 Dental Survey gives an impression of an abbreviated pilot study, and its value must be questioned, mainly because of greatly reduced sample population sizes and the question of sampling representativity. Accompanying brief comments for 11-12 y.o. children note, “a two-fold variation in the number of decayed missing and filled teeth from 1.07 in North Coast to 0.44 in Hunter New England. (COHS 2009).” The 2000 DMFT data for the regionally similar ‘Northern Rivers’ (n = 2,475 & DMFT = 0.62) was much lower. Nevertheless, the 2007-2000 comparison implies an appalling state of dental health on NSW’s North Coast and a 73 % worsening between 2000 and 2007. The NSW North Coast was unfluoridated during this period.

 

[NHMRC has removed offensive information].

 

Meanwhile 2007 data for 11 – 12 y.o. children (n = 299 pupils & DMFT = 0.66) in fluoridated Southeast Sydney suggests a significant 40.4 % worsening of dental health compared to 2000 data (n = 4,772 pupils & DMFT = 0.47). Assuming the 2007 data are believable, the suggested deterioration implies that water fluoridation is not helping to reduce decay. Other factors are operating.

 

 [NHMRC has removed offensive information].

 

All levels of government need to acknowledge that imposition of fluoridation without consent is a violation of a citizen’s right to refuse “therapeutic” treatment against his or her wishes. On the other hand, when NO PROVEN THERAPEUTIC BENEFIT can be demonstrated, existing Federal and State legislation prohibit poisonous substances from being intentionally disposed of in drinking water supplies, regardless of the contaminant’s concentration.

 

# 6. Pro-fluoridation Bias and NHMRC “endorsement”:

 

In publicly available supporting documentation the NHMRC consistently presents a biased view in favour of water fluoridation.

 

For example, under sub-headings 3.2 International fluoride supplementation and 3.2.1 Water fluoridation contained in a file document the following historical summary is offered,

 

“Although research into the beneficial effects of fluoride began in the early 1900’s the first community fluoridation program did not begin until 1945 in Grand Rapids Michigan, USA. Three other studies followed in Newburgh, New York (USA) in May 1945, Brantford, Ontario (Canada) in June 1945, and Evanston, Illinois (USA) in February 1947. The results from these studies were used to establish the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation of public water supplies. In Australia, the first inclusion of fluoride into a municipal water supply occurred in Beaconsfield, near Launceston, Tasmania in 1953. Subsequently all Australian capital cities, including Canberra but excluding Brisbane, have implemented water fluoridation (Figure 3 – Map of Australia provided).”

 

The highlighted (i.e. underlined and italicised ) passages above reveal bias and readiness to make unfounded claims which are contradicted by previous factual reporting (refer to # 5 above) of early historical events.

 

In 1972, A. Shatz and J.J. Martin, in a paper entitled “The Failure of Fluoridation in the United Kingdom” (Pakistan Dental Review, v. 22:2), commented as follows:

 

“If you read the official report uncritically and accept it on faith, you get the impression that fluoridation reduced caries. But if you carefully analysed the statistics in the report, you quickly realize that fluoridation did not reduce caries. The official report really proves just the very opposite of what it claims to prove.”

 

 A similar criticism can be directed at the NHMRC 2016 Draft Report on Fluoridation.

 

# 7. Dental Fluorosis :

 

Interestingly, dental fluorosis is the only harm caused by water fluoridation that is freely acknowledged by dentists and the NHMRC.

 

However, a succession of NHMRC Reviews has trivialised dental fluorosis by describing it as a “cosmetic” effect which does not impair function. It is presumed that most affected persons would not be bothered by having mild dental fluorosis. This is a cop out, and devalues the simple fact that dental fluorosis is the consequence of fluoride-induced HARM to mineralised tissue developing in childrens’ gums prior to tooth eruption. This harm implies that ingested fluoride interfered with the enzyme processes involved.

 

Unfortunate citizens who have dental fluorosis would be angered to learn that mandatorily imposed water fluoridation has not helped improve their overall dental outcomes.

 

For the NHMRC and health professionals to claim “no proven harm” for other parts of our bodies is naively fraudulent. The latter denies fluoride’s proven capacity to inhibit normal enzyme activity, to impair/suppress our immune systems and, as a recently acknowledged neurotoxin, the capacity to also damage neurones, neural networks and IQ. None of these concerning health-damaging properties of fluoride are acknowledged or addressed in NHMRC reviews.

 

# 8.  2015 COCHRANE REVIEW ON DENTAL FLUOROSIS

 

The commissioned 2015 Cochrane Review on dental fluorosis is competent and useful.

 

Cochrane’s data analysis demonstrates that the incidence of dental fluorosis increases non-linearly with fluoride content in drinking water supplies, and offers the highest levels of reliability for the lowest levels of fluoride content. The severity of fluorosis damage also increases with water fluoride content, as has commonly been stated.

 

The most important revelation from Cochrane’s graph is that even at near-zero fluoride concentrations in drinking water, the incidence of dental fluorosis ranges from around 7 to roughly 25 %.

It follows that whilst drinking water is a major contributor of dietary fluoride, it is not the only source. Additional fluoride is obviously consumed from foods, beverages and fluoridated toothpaste etc. In industrial areas, air and rain water can contain significant concentrations of fluoride.

 

When considered alone, a roughly 7 to 25 % minimum incidence of dental fluorosis in any given population is unacceptably high and is proof of a significant level of fluoride toxification. Ideally there should be ZERO dental fluorosis, as might be expected for inhabitants living in non-industrialised country areas where healthy unprocessed foods are eaten, fluoride-free drinking water is consumed, and non-fluoridated toothpaste is used.

 

Some personal choices can be made to reduce total daily fluoride intakes in terms of mg of F/kilo of body weight/person (baby, child, or adult) /day. However, the availability of only fluoridated drinking water sources containing an “optimum” 1 ppm fluoride, may reasonably be expected to roughly double the incidence of ‘mild’ and ‘moderate’ forms of dental fluorosis.

 

Very importantly, the incidence of different harms due to fluoride load will also increase as fluoride load increases. US Risk-analysis expert, Dr K. M. Thiessen addressed such concerns in a 1972 paper entitled, “Adverse Health Effects from fluoride in Drinking Water” submitted to a Metropolitan Water District, Los Angeles, California. In decreasing order of susceptibility to potential harm, Thiessen lists “no-effect” fluoride thresh holds for humans as follows: impaired thyroid function (iodine deficient / = 0.005 mg F/kg/day), ‘moderate’ dental fluorosis ( = 0.02 mg F/kg/day), impaired thyroid function (adequate iodine / = 0.03 mg F/kg/day), impaired glucose metabolism (= 0.03 mg F/ kg/day), stage II skeletal fluorosis (0.04 mg F/kg/day), ‘severe’ dental fluorosis and neurotoxicity (both 0.05 mg F/kg/day), and finally increased risk of bone fracture (= 0.09 mg F/kg/day). Accordingly, there is a sequence of potential harms corresponding to various fluoride loads. For higher fluoride loads, a combination of harms can be anticipated.

 

It should be borne in mind that dental fluorosis is a time-restricted potential harm when teeth are developing in children’s gums and does not continue into adulthood. On the other hand, the other potential harms in Thiessen’s LIST relate to fluoride exposure over longer periods.

 

It cannot be denied that exposure to fluoride, increased by unnecessary Water Fluoridation, exposes consumers to increased risks of tissue damage and illnesses, especially over the long term.  

 

# 9.  CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION       

Dr. G. L. Waldbott, U.S. physician and allergist (1898-1982), was a giant among medical researchers. His scientific integrity serves as a shining example for all scientists seeking truth and transparency in any scientific endeavour. After a long and troubled involvement with fluoride, including demonstration of many of fluoride’s deleterious effects on human health, Waldbott (1965; “A Struggle With Titans.”; Carlton Press; 383 pages) offers the following reflections:

“On the basis of available information the question whether fluoridation is safe and effective is no longer at issue. It is evident that :

            ⃝ fluoridation was originally promoted by industry;

            ⃝ a handful of outstanding scientists were given grants to carry out research in order to prove                a predetermined thesis;

            ⃝ these scientists, utilizing this research and their high standing in scientific groups, were able to attract officials in medical and dental organisations;

            ⃝ the dental branch of the U.S. Public Health Service embraced the new “health measure” at a time when relatively little progress in preventative dentistry was on record compared with its sister branches in the medical field;

            ⃝ new industries including some of the toothpaste and drug industries fell into line;

            ⃝ the same scientists, now aided by the U.S.P.H.S., began a vigorous campaign among lay organisations with the backing of some of their colleagues whom they had, by now, convinced that fluoridation is safe;

            ⃝ these men won the news media, especially medical news writers, for their cause and thus prevented data unfavourable to the project from reaching the profession and the public;

            ⃝ supported by the P.H.S., by industry, by professional organisations, lay groups and trusting individual civic leaders, they created an unfavourable public image of all who disagreed, lay persons and scientists alike.

 

I suggest that it should be evident to all NHMRC staff and various committee members who are honest with themselves that Water Fluoridation is a costly SCAM and is negatively impacting the health of all Australians.

 

I strongly urge the NHMRC to estimate the proportion of Australia’s national Health Budget that is likely to be attributable to the harmful effects of water fluoridation. The size of potential budget savings resulting from abandonment of water fluoridation may surprise.

 

The Water Fluoridation SCAM must cease. This practice equates to a moral crime by Government against its own citizens. Abandonment of fluoridation would bring Australia into line with European countries who respect the right of citizens to refuse “medication” and/or to not have their drinking water poisoned by the deliberate addition of industrial waste.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Dr. [NHMRC has removed personal information about the submitter]  (October 12, 2016)

 

 

 

Your submission: 

Page reviewed: 4 July, 2017