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: 
25
This submission reflects the views of
Organisation Name: 
Fluoride Free WA Incorporated
Personal Details
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: 

For professional scientists who have viewed this draft Information Paper, it is impossible to understand how such a travesty got to this stage. The NHMRC’s 2014 public call for evidence limited all public submissions to 500 words. This ludicrous action by the NHMRC created international scientific condemnation and public outrage.

Failure to include in vitro and in vivo toxicology studies on tissue culture or whole animals is a breach of trust for any report on an environmental bio-accumulative poison. The use of an unaccepted version of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation) is totally unjustified for an environmental toxin, as has been outlined by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), which uses a much broader set of information sources with emphasis on animal studies. With automated translation freely available, there is no excuse for exclusion of papers published in languages other than English.

Comments on a particular section of the Public Statement: 
NHMRC statement

[NHMRC has removed potentially defamotary information].

Members of the FRG had some of their own publications excluded from the Cochrane Collaboration review of 2015 due to bias or poor quality but included these papers in the very few considered by the NHMRC. The Colgate funded Cochrane review found no evidence that Fluoridation has any benefit for adults [Iheozor-Ejiofor 2015].

The NHMRC made a pre-emptive attack on an important paper published in February 2015, demonstrating damage to the Thyroid in the masses exposed to Fluoridation in the UK.

The NHMRC included the discredited Broadbent study in its considerations.

The NHMRC had advance and detailed knowledge that the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has commenced animal studies to investigate the Neurotoxicology of Fluoride with fresh animal sacrifice. At the same time the NTP has contracted a literature review of evidence re Fluoride Carcinogenicity.

The NHMRC failed to properly address important research linking Fluoride to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism.

The NHMRC failed to properly address important research on other harms reported in hundreds of papers submitted by the public.

The NHMRC failed to properly report on the single largest and most comprehensive review of Fluoride Toxicology, namely the US NRC 2006 report running to hundreds of pages and considering thousands of papers.

The NHMRC falsely represented the 2000 “York review” [McDonagh 2000]. In fact it did not find water Fluoridation to be safe and stated there was little evidence to show that water Fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.

The NHMRC fails to emphasize the known risks to vulnerable groups such as those who drink large quantities of water through working in hot environments or as a result of Diabetes Insipidus. The very large number of people suffering Chronic Kidney Disease, including those not yet diagnosed, were likewise not warned of the consequences of drinking Fluoride poison, a known Nephrotoxin.

The NHMRC fails to warn of the dangers to bottle fed infants from Fluoridated water.

The NHMRC fails to discuss Colgate marketing Fluoride-free toothpaste for young children.

The NHMRC used its connections to stack a group that reported for FSANZ, maintaining the myth that Fluoride is a “nutrient” and increasing the allowable exposure limits, when administrations around the world are tightening them. The NHMRC fails to report on the range of dietary intake of Fluoride from all sources.

The NHMRC fails to report that the incidence of dental hypoplasia (Fluorosis) has been measured at 71% in young children in Western Australia [Arrow 2008] with one child in 17 judged to have such severe damage as to require clinical intervention. The author stated “The treatment needs of these children are likely to be complicated by difficulties in achieving analgesia, management of difficult behaviours and difficulty in achieving good restorative outcomes due to the poor quality of the enamel”.

The NHMRC fails to report that leading experts using state of the art technology have concluded “F treatments have no effect on improving crystal quality or remineralization and are inconsistent with the purpose of public health” [Kakei 2012].

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: 

It is very clear that extreme bias was used from concept to publication.

 

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 Fluoride Reference Group’s interpretation of the evidence that has been excluded would be more relevant.

Comments on a particular section of the Public Statement: 
Question 4
Q4. How could the Public Statement be effectively disseminated?: 
Who would find the draft Public Statement useful?

No one would find it useful as it is highly inaccurate false and misleading.

 

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 requirement that answers to this question “report on one or more dental outcomes” is totally inappropriate – it is obvious that “other health effects” are not “dental”. Given that 95% of humanity is not deliberately exposed to the Fluoride poison by Fluoridation, the emphasis has to be on studies looking at Fluoridated communities at two time points, before and after the poisoning.

Page reviewed: 9 November, 2017