Judge for yourself.
The following requests have been sent to Prof Gluckman, Chief Science Advisor for the Prime Minister. The replies are provided under the questions as they are received.
Request 29th September 2014
1. In Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence, page 47 states that “skeletal fluorosis is the result of very high fluoride intake over long periods of time e.g 20mg per day for 20 years or more cause crippling skeletal fluorosis”.
The US Institute of Medicine, state in Chapter 8 of their publication Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride, ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109832/) that an intake as low as 10mg a day for 10 years “is needed to produce clinical signs of the milder forms of the condition”.
Please provide what intake of fluoride over 40 years might cause first stage skeletal fluorosis.
2. In Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence, page 29 states “The recommendation for fluoride intake in adults in Australia and New Zealand is 3mg per day for women and 4mg per day for men.”
Please provide what bodily requirement would be met by this intake of fluoride.
Reply – not yet received
Please also provide what laboratory and epidemiological tools have been used to assess the risk.
Reply – not yet received
Request 4th September 2014
Page 5 of the recent review “Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence” states that “The potential for increased bone fracture risk has also been extensively examined. While the scientific consensus confirmed in this review that there are not significant or realistic risks, as a matter of public health surveillance, such claims continue to be studied and monitored in populations receiving fluoridated water.”
This is discussed in detail on page 48 which says “The effects of fluoride intake on fracture risk and bone strength have been studied in animals and in a large number of epidemiological studies….The weight of evidence indicates that increasing amounts of fluoride might increase bone volume, but there is less strength per unit of volume.” A bit later it says “The York Report reviewed 29 studies (all of low validity) that assessed whether there was an association between water fluoridation and bone fractures or bone development problems. No evidence of an elevated risk of fractures could be attributed to water fluoridation at optimal levels.”
Please provide a list of all studies relied upon in this review (Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence) which showed there are not significant or realistic risks for bone fractures or bone development problems when water is fluoridated at 1ppm or less. Please note if these studies were reviewed by the York Review and if the York Review deemed them to be of low validity or not.
Please also provide a list of all programmes/studies which are monitoring populations receiving fluoridated water. Please note where in the world these monitoring programmes/studies are being carried out and what exactly they are monitoring..
Please note that “fluoridated water” is “The addition of a fluorine compound to drinking water for the purpose of reducing tooth decay” therefore only programmes/studies pertaining to populations drinking water that has had the addition of a fluorine compound to the drinking water are applicable.
Reply received 2nd October 2014
Thank you for your email of 4 September below. I am writing to let you know that the deadline for responding to your request is being extended until 30 October 2014 under Section 15A of the Official Information Act. This extension of time is necessary because consultation is needed to make a decision on your request before a response to your request can be made. If that process is completed before 30 October, a response will be sent to you as soon as possible.
Request 19th August 2014
“Were any scientists or other professionals known to be opposed to fluoridation invited to be involved in the Fluoridation Review?”
Reply 16th September 2014
I am writing in reference to your correspondence of 19 August, in which you enquired under the Official Information Act: “Were any scientists or other professionals known to be opposed to fluoridation invited to be involved in the Fluoridation Review?”
Since the time of your request, the report entitled “Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence” has been made public. The full list of panelists and domestic and international reviewers can be found on page 3 of the published report, which is accessible here: http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Health-effects-of-water-fluoridation-Aug20141.pdf. These professionals were chosen on the basis of their recognised expertise according to the highest standards of scientific excellence.
You are entitled to ask the Ombudsman to review this response under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act.
Request 19th August 2014
Reply 23rd September 2014
I am writing in reference to your electronic mail message of September 17, in which you reasserted a request to know “whether any scientists who were opposed to fluoridation were invited to be on the panel.”
In response to your initial request for this information, made on August 19th under the Official Information Act, I indicated that the panelists and domestic and international reviewers (whose names have been published since your request) were chosen on the basis of their recognised expertise according to the highest standards of scientific excellence.
Although it was implied in my response, I realise now that I should have made it explicit that this was the only criterion on which names were proposed and selected. Of course, practicality also dictated that the availability of the proposed panelists and reviewers was also a consideration
Request 24th September 2014
Request 27 August 2014
Office of the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister
Attn: Dr Anne Bardsley
Request for official information regarding the review “Health Effects of Water fluoridation” published by the Office of the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister and the Royal Society.
Please provide the following information:
Of the original research referenced in the end notes to the report, which were read in their entirety as published, by the author
- The citations to all original research read by the author in their entirety as published, which are not referenced in the end notes to the report.
- The editions of the journal Fluoride read by the author.
- Which, if any, of the information, including attachments, provided to the Royal Society by the NZ Fluoridation Information Service,
- in response to its request for information in 2012 for its then-planned fluoridation review has the author read?
- Which of the original research referenced in that information has the author read?
- Regarding Bassin’s osteosarcoma study, please provide the citations for all research read in its entirety as published, by the author, that addresses Bassin’s core finding of aged-related exposure to fluoride in males and osteosarcoma risk.
- (a) Has the author read the published reports on the Southland (2005) and Auckland (2008) dental fluorosis studies? (b) If so, why does the author cite the 2009 Oral Health Survey on this subject, in light of its disclaimer on page 167, rather than bona fide research?
Was the author aware of the US EPA’s following position regarding dissociation of silicofluorides in water when she contradicted it? If so, on what basis does she contradict it?
- In 2002,the U.S.EPA issued a“Request for Assistance,” inviting research proposals on methods to detect and measure SiF dissociationproducts. As part of this, Urbansky wrote, on behalf of the EPA: “there is considerable debate over the composition and even the existence of some homo-and heteroleptic aquo-,fluoro-,and hydroxo-complexes of silicon-(IV),which makes it impossible to predict what species might be found in real potable water supplies that are fluoridated or those that naturally contain fluoride and silicates as backgroundions.”Urbansky wrote in conclusion:“it is probably best to stop using qualified expressions such as ‘virtually complete’ or ‘essentially complete’ in favor of more rigorous and quantitative descriptions [of SiF dissociation] even if that hinders communication with the laypublic.
- The author quotes Featherstone 1999 as authority for the claim that fluoride works systemically during tooth formation to harden enamel against decay. Which page and line is the author relying on for this claim – this is not quoted in the citation?
- Is the author aware that the quoted paper in fact was the turning point that refuted that belief, in favour of topical effect? If so, why does she falsely quote this paper as endorsing the refuted theory of a systemic pre-eruptive mechanism?
- What was the selection process for deciding what literature to review?
- How was research or other literature suggesting that fluoridation is unsafe/poses a health risk, or ineffective, identified for inclusion in the review.
- Please provide a list of the literature referred to in question 12 so identified, that which was reviewed, and that which was not.
- Please specifically identify all original research read by the author in its entirety as published regarding the effects of fluoride and/or fluoridation on the cardiovascular system
- Please specifically identify all original research read by the author in its entirety as published regarding the effects of fluoride and/or fluoridation on increases in pre-term birth rates
- Please provide all information the author considered on the mechanism by which dental fluorosis is caused (please note: “excessive fluoride” is NOT a mechanism)
Request 19 August 2014
1 Please advise who initiated the fluoridation review and when was it initiated as advised by Prof Gluckman?
2 Who approved the fluoridation review as advised by Prof Gluckman?
I am asking for this under the Official Information Act.
Since the time of your request, the report entitled “Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence” has been published. This publication includes, by way of preamble, a letter from Sir Peter Gluckman and Sir David Skegg, which describes the history and the process of the project. I believe this letter will respond to your first question.
With regard to your second question, to the extent that such a report is ‘approved’ this is done through the process of peer review, which is the internationally standard method by which the scientific community assesses and endorses the robustness of data and the rigour of methods used to analyse them. The report was subject to both domestic and international peer review, as detailed on page 3 of the published document, which is available here http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Health-effects-of-water-fluoridation-Aug20141.pdf. The report could not have been published without peer review endorsement.