Fluoride Free NZ congratulates Dr Broadbent for looking into the serious issue of whether fluoridation affects IQ despite the fact that the research is still disappointingly predicated on a dogmatic and well-documented falsehood that ‘fluoridation prevents tooth decay’.
Based on the following points why do you, the NZDA and the MOH continue to promote fluoridation when it does not work, is not proven to be safe and robs people of choice?
1. According to MOH’s own statistics Cantabrians have some of the best teeth in NZ and they do not have fluoridated water.
2. Oral health has steadily improved in NZ as our diet and oral hygiene practices have steadily improved.
3. As local (WDHB) and international (Scotland) tooth brushing programmes have shown there are dramatic results possible with education. By the way, Scotland does not fluoridate their water supply.
4. We have known since 1999 that fluoride’s principal benefit (if at all) is topical. The MOH have since argued that it returns to your mouth in an even more diluted form via your saliva and that this prevents tooth decay. This saliva theory is ridiculous.
5. The very first experiment in 1950s NZ which claimed to have proven that fluoridating water was a success was unequivocally shown, by Auckland’s Principal Dental officer and whistleblower, Dr John Colquhoun, to be poor science and a manipulated experiment. That was in 1983 and fluoridation promoters are still making the claim that fluoridation is based on sound science.
6. 97% of Western Europe does not fluoridate their shared water supplies. Why are we so behind the times?
7. The MOH and DHB’s quote a 40% tooth decay reduction in their referendum materials. This is taken from the 2009 NZ Oral Health Survey.
“It is important to note that it was not one of the objectives of the 2009 NZOHS to compare the oral health status of people by fluoridation status, and therefore the survey cannot be taken as a fluoridation study. The following results are a snapshot in time and constitute an ecological analysis based on current place of residence. As such they do not take into account lifetime exposure to fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies. Individuals who currently live in fluoridated areas may have spent time in non-fluoridated areas, and the reverse is also true. Furthermore, there may be other confounding factors that haven’t been taken into account.”
It may have been valid for the Ministry of Health to take a snap shot in time if they were looking at a large population. But the 2009 Oral Health Survey only contained about 60 children in each age group. In comparison, the New Zealand School Dental statistics that are collected every year, and freely available on the MoH website, have about 45,000 children in each age group.
Therefore, it is misleading for the MoH, or anyone else, to use data from the 2009 Oral Health Survey.
8. Not one randomised control trial (RCT) has ever been completed to prove fluoridation’s safety or effectiveness.
9. Lastly, why have you not disclosed how many of the 99 children in the non-fluoridated sample were the same children that were in the sample of the 139 children who were taking fluoride tablets? Without this knowledge it is logical for us to assume that most of the children taking fluoride tablets were living in the non-fluoridated area. Since fluoride tablets would give a child a similar dose as drinking fluoridated water it would appear that your study is seriously flawed.
Fluoride Free NZ finds your one weak study for fluoridation does not adequately answer the question mark that surrounds fluoridation. Fluoride Free NZ calls for an immediate moratorium on fluoridation until fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness is completely and thoroughly tested.
Fluoride Free NZ