Hamilton City Council delays decision on water fluoridation

Atlas Monitor

28 Nov 2013

The Hamilton City Council has delayed their decision on whether or not to reinstate their water fluoridation regime until the outcome of the South Taranaki judicial review is known.

The South Taranaki Council’s decision to fluoridate the public water supply  is being challenged by anti-fluoride group Health New Zealand on the grounds that the fluoridation regime constitutes forced medication and is therefore in contravention of the NZ Bill of Rights.

The Hamilton referendum on water fluoridation has demonstrated that one-third of Hamilton residents don’t want fluoride. New Zealand grants concessions for minorities that constitute a far lesser proportion of society i.e. gays, Maori, children, the elderly, cyclists, students, returned servicemen, the obscenely rich and politicians.

Water fluoridation studies that demonstrate the inherent risks with water fluoridation are being wilfully ignored by the Ministry of Health; they include: The National Research Council 2006 “Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA’s standards”; Bassin et al, Harvard study 2006, which found that water fluoridation increases osteosarcoma; Cheng et al 2007, “Adding fluoride to water supplies”, published in the British Medical Journal; MacDonagh et al 2000, “Systemic review of water fluoridation” (York report) also  published in the British Medical Journal; and Declan Waugh 2013, “Public health investigation of epidemiological data on disease and mortality in Ireland related to water fluoridation”; as well as a catalogue of scientific literature and professional perspectives.

The Hastings experiment that ran from 1954 to 1964 was used to justify NZ fluoridation regime. It compared fluoridated Hastings with non-fluoridated Napier and found that Napier’s tooth decay rates dropped faster than Hastings. Napier was subsequently dropped from the study but Hastings’ decay rate didn’t drop after Hastings’ water was fluoridated.

By dropping Napier as the control group the study changed from a comparative study to a longitudinal study which compared dental health at the beginning of the study to dental health at the end of the study. What also changed during the study was the diagnostic threshold for administering fillings. Sometime during the study period the threshold was changed from requiring fillings for non-caries such as mere indentations in the tooth to restricting fillings for holes caused by caries. Anti-fluoridation scientist Paul Connett says

Now what makes this fraud in my view, when this study was finally published and they claimed a huge reduction in tooth decay as a result of ‘fluoridation’, they didn’t indicate to the public that this diagnostic had been changed. That to me is fraud. If you change a key parameter which has an effect on your result, that’s outrageous from a scientific point of view

Insidiously, the measuring system was manipulated to contrive a drop in decay rates.

The reason for the failure of decay rate despite fluoridation is that the wrong mechanism was being employed. Benefits, if any, are affected topically not systemically was the opinion of the US Centre for Disease Control in 1999.

According to dentist Dr Stan Litras the pro-fluoridation groups manipulate public perception by promoting endorsements rather than science; exploiting ignorance at the public health level; using misrepresentation at advisory level; and running taxpayer-funded propaganda.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s