NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

Draft NHMRC Public Statement 2017: Water fluoridation and human health in Australia submission

ID: 
22
Personal Details
First Name: 
Bernard
Last Name: 
Needham
Question 1
Q1. A. The draft Public Statement is presented in a format and manner that is useful, and is easy to read and understand: 
Disagree
Overarching/General comments on the Public Statement: 

The wording of the comments in the Public Statement (NHMRC Water Fluoridation and Human Health in Australia) is constructed in such a way as to lead those familiar with the content to conclude that they are merely public relations phrases with no discernible medical or scientific validity.

Comments on a particular section of the Public Statement: 
Dental fluorosis

Dental Fluorosis is more than merely a cosmetic effect of the tooth surface, it is the visible signs of malformed enamel caused by oxidative stress in the endoplasmic reticulum of the ameloblasts. That is not a beneficial consequence and it is not protective it is defective.

Use of fluoride tablets or supplements in Australia

While it may be appropriate to undertake a medication regime based on a chosen health care practitioner NHMRC finds no dificulty in recommending that a government department medicate the entire population without consent, let alone in consultation with their doctor or dentist in reference to their own "circumstances'.

Question 2
Q2. A. The boxed ‘NHMRC statement’ (page one) in the draft Public Statement is justified and supported by the evidence in the Information Paper: Effects of Water Fluoridation on Dental and Other Human Health Outcomes : 
Disagree
Q2. B. If disagree or neutral, please provide recent scientific evidence not previously submitted to NHMRC. Refer to what is ‘Out of scope for this public consultation’ below: 

The nature of the selection criteria for 'acceptable' evidence and what is ‘Out of scope for this public consultation’ effectively ruled out most scientific reports which would demonstrate that the claims being made in the NHMRC Public Statement 2017(Water Fluoridation and Human Health in Australia) can not be substantiated by the facts. A genuine approach would have allowed the inclusion of historical documents as well as studies which, while recent fell outside the chronological frame of reference. That a significant proportion of the FRG were industry participants known to support water fluoridation and with obvious conflicts of interest which should have disqualified them from participation.

Question 3
Q3. A. For policy makers, the draft Public Statement provides sufficient information to support decision making in your jurisdiction or local area: 
Disagree
Overarching/General comments on the Public Statement: 

The NHMRC Public Statement 2017(Water Fluoridation and Human Health in Australia) recommends that Australian State Governments disregard the innate human rights of their citizens and enforce a mass medication program with a neurotoxin which, if released into the environment would be in breach of local and federal waste disposal laws. It claims that to not do this would be unethical. The Government has now legislated the definition of words, facts and ethics.

Comments on a particular section of the Public Statement: 
NHMRC’s role in community water fluoridation

If NHMRC was indeed 'responsible' for providing advice based on the best scientific evidence they would seek out independent scientists to provide evidence and other independent professionals to assess that evidence. People who are not compromised by bias and conflicts of interests and who are not protected from prosecution for providing faulty advice. Any decision maker relying on the NHMRC to provide independent, unbiased advice about this topic should look at this organisations history of researching and commenting on the application of chemicals to the entire community.

Question 4
Q4. How could the Public Statement be effectively disseminated?: 
General comments

The best solution to this document would be to stamp it "Unfit for human consumption" and recommend that no political agency has jurisdiction over the health aspirations of any member of  the public. If any fluorinated substance had any benefit for human health, the only recommendation that could be made, may be, that a health care professional working for their patient, provide advice on the adverse effects of what they are offering as well as any alleged benefits and obtaining their consent, prior to undertaking any course of treatment. This is actually what is embodied in the 'Charter of Health Rights' so why should fluoridated water be exempted.

Question 5
Q5. Is there any other information that may be useful to include in the draft Public Statement? If so, please provide details: 

 

The NHMRC Public Statement 2017(Water Fluoridation and Human Health in Australia) should carry the disclaimer that the contents of the document and the associated "Information Paper; Water fluoridation: dental and other human health outcomes" should be taken with a grain of salt and they should be read with the understanding that the authors have their tongue planted firmly in their cheek.

 

What the NHMRC Public Statement 2017(Water Fluoridation and Human Health in Australia) should say is "The NHMRC, is committed to upholding and fulfilling its charter (https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/nhmrc-about-contact-us-making-complaint-service-charter) , to provide unbiased advice to the Australian public, and upon concluding a comprehensive review of the issue of using the public water supply as a toxic waste dump, it is recommending a complete and irrevocable cessation of community water fluoridation. Further the NHMRC recommends that the DPP’s of the States and Commonwealth of Australia Governments work together to investigate and prosecute the individuals and organisations which have colluded in the conspiracy to falsely promote industrial toxic waste as a nutrient for humans and the coercion and corruption of politicians, political parties and institutions and also government bureaucracies into the implementing of this absurd atrocity. The NHMRC also recommends that no efforts to implement mass medication of the public ever be undertaken by any individual or group for any reason including under such guises as fortification of food or vaccination programs. The NHMRC apologises unreservedly to the public for its role in this deception and undertakes to provide free to the public the complete restoration of health to all those suffering from the effects of fluoride poisoning, no matter how seemingly insignificant that impairment may be. This statement in no way exonerates the NHMRC which has been an avid participant in this deception and the employees, staff and management that have been in any way associated with water fluoridation in the past. Therefore the NHMRC surrenders itself to the scrutiny of the investigators and puts itself at the mercy of the courts."

 

 

 

 

Page reviewed: 9 November, 2017