Fluoridation Decision Betrays Science and the Community
Council Fluoridation Decision Betrays Science and the Community
Wellington, 12 December 2012
“Contrary to Mayor Dunlop’s claim, the scientific evidence against fluoridation provided to the South Taranaki District Council was overwhelming. The STDC received essentially the same information as the New Plymouth District Council did last year, ending fluoridation after a vastly more robust process than the STDC’s”, says Mark Atkin, one of the many individuals who provided input into the process.
While Deputy Mayor Alex Ballantyne said those who opposed fluoride failed to stump up with any credible facts, the New Plymouth Council said their decision, on essentially the same facts, was because ‘those opposed to fluoridation simply presented the more credible scientific case’. “Just who is in fantasyland here?” asks Mr Atkin.
“In all the STDC received almost 1000 pages of scientific information against fluoridation from the NZ Fluoridation Information Service, none of which can be refuted by the Ministry of Health,” advises Mr Atkin, NZFIS’ founder. Unless councillors voting for fluoridation have read it all, and done so with an open mind, their vote is legally invalid,” says Mr Atkin, a qualified lawyer.
Essentially the same information was confirmed as received by the Royal Society for its fluoridation review, yet denied by its president, Professor Skegg, after the review was cancelled. Again, the same information was provided to the Commissioner for Children, who declined to read it. The Commissioner is a member of the Hawke’s Bay DHB.
“Both these men have disgraced themselves by their dishonesty over this information. Both should resign. Yet this is the caliber of ‘endorsement’ relied on by Mayor Dunlop to justify adding hazardous industrial waste to the public water supply”, observes Mr Atkin.
In fact since the New Plymouth decision a Harvard-led review of IQ studies concluded the studies raised valid scientific evidence of health risks in infants. This was made available to the STDC, in its originally published form. As if to highlight this, another study currently under translation into English shows that total daily intake of 1-4 mg fluoride reduces IQ by up to 8 points. In NZ we get 3 mg/day according to the Ministry of Health. Similarly, US Government data from 1993 shows that as fluoridation coverage increases, the per capita rate of mentally retarded births increases in direct proportion.
“In response to local dentist, Mr Antunovic’s, question at the Waverley meeting ‘Are all babies born stupid then?’ the obvious answer is ‘Not all, but some certainly are!’” quips Mr Atkin.
“To paraphrase Mayor Dunlop, ‘Fluoridation of the water supply harms all people with (or without) natural teeth regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, income or education’ as the scientific evidence presented to the STDC, but ignored by all but three (admirable) councillors, shows overwhelmingly.”
“The reality is that the majority of STDC councillors have been captured by the pseudoscience and pompous self-proclaimed ‘authority’ of fluoridation promoters. The push for the fluoridation “consultation”, now shown to be a sham, came from disgruntled fluoridation promoters (following the wise New Plymouth decision), who orchestrated well-meaning but scientifically ignorant local health practitioners to overwhelm the STDC”, suggests Mr Atkin.
“I would suggest that few if any of the ‘local GP’s and dentists who submitted strongly in support of fluoridating the water supply’ have read a single scientific study on the issue. They just parrot what they were taught at dental or medical school, or provided by the DHB. Conversely, the doctors, dentists, and other health professionals speaking against fluoridation had clearly done their own independent research. This was a stark contrast to the rhetoric repeated ad nauseam by the fluoridation apologists, adeptly imitating ventriloquists’ dummies”, observes Mr Atkin.
“Similarly, the majority of organizations quoted by Mr Dunlop as endorsing fluoridation have never studied the science. Most are funded by the Ministry of Health (in NZ) or other fluoridation promoters. In fact Plunket (part-funded by Colgate) ‘refuse[s] to look at the facts, so long as fluoridation is Ministry of Health policy’. (Plunket’s formal response to FANNZ)” points out Mr Atkin.
“If the STDC thinks this is the end of the matter, they should reflect on the recent uprising against fluoridation in Portland, Oregon, and of course Queensland Australia, where the State Government has just repealed its mandatory fluoridation legislation – conveniently overlooked in Mr Dunlop’s references to our neighbour’s ‘increasing fluoridation’,” advises Mr Atkin.
“Those councillors who voted for fluoridation on Monday should not only be ashamed of their betrayal of the people of Patea and Waverley, they should be held criminally liable for the harm, and in some cases death, they will cause. The same goes for those who promoted this decision. Willfully self-imposed blindness is no excuse,” says Mr Atkin, speaking on behalf of Fluoridegate Legal Action NZ.
About NZFIS and Fluoridegate Legal Action
was established following the establishment, by the Ministry
of Health, of the National Water Fluoridation Support and
Coordination Service, calling itself the National
Fluoridation Information Service (NFIS).
Unlike NFIS, which publishes standard pro-fluoridation propaganda, NZFIS provides factual information, without being involved in political action. In this way, NZFIS essentially works in parallel to Fluoride Action Network NZ, which engages in political activity as well as disseminating factual information about fluoridation.
Its advisors include a doctor, dentist, scientist, and lawyer.
Action NZ was formed on a similar basis to Fluoridegate USA,
founded by a US attorney. Its purpose is to ultimately bring
those responsible for fluoridation to account, on a criminal
basis, for the harm and deaths they cause, when the
scientific evidence is readily