Invitation to Western Bay of Plenty councillors to Michael Connett talk
Sean Plunket:
We are joined now by phone by Robin Whyman and Robin is the policy advisor at the Dental Association. Welcome to the programme and thank you very much indeed for following us.
Robin Whyman:
Good morning, Sean.
Sean Plunket:
Alright Robin, just for those who don’t know, the Dental Association represents, well advocates for who?
Robin Whyman:
The Dentists. So, we represent about 98% of Dentists in New Zealand.
Sean Plunket:
Wow
Robin Whyman:
Yeah, we have a role of advocating for Dentists, but we also have a strong role in advocating for good oral health as well.
Sean Plunket:
Yeah, okay. Let’s go straight to it. Is fluoridation of water a beneficial thing for New Zealanders?
Robin Whyman:
Yes, it is. The studies that have been done over many years show that people who are drinking fluoridated water have a benefit in terms of improving, less decay and less severe decay over time. The effect of that. There was quite a big international piece of research done at the end of last year looking at all of the studies over a long period of time, showed that actually that effect has reduced a bit since the 1970s because we also use fluoridated toothpastes these days. But basically, that effect remains and we see that in New Zealand. When the last oral health survey was done it was about 20 to 40% better than if you were drinking fluoridated water.
FFNZ:
Robin Whyman is referring to the gold standard in research the Cochrane Collaboration which was published at the end of last year (October 2024). The Cochrane Collaboration found only a slight benefit to fluoridation, but the report also stated that it could not rule out that there was no benefit to fluoridation at all. This is a significant reduction to the 40% reduction that the NZDA have been using for all these years. When Whyman states the research “showed that actually that effect has reduced a bit” he is being disingenuous because the benefits have gone completely.
The US based CDC has known since 1999 that if fluoride works at all, it works on the surface of the tooth. Therefore, it stands to reason that fluoride to the water has minimal to no effect on reducing tooth decay.
Whyaman should be advocating the Scottish Childsmile programme. This is essentially a school toothbrushing scheme that has caused dental decay rates to plummet in Scotland. It has also achieved a halving of general anaesthetics needed for severe dental decay. Anyone who really cares about children suffering from severe dental decay would be advocating for this simple, effective and cost saving scheme.
Sean Plunket: Okay, what is the spread of fluoridated water in municipal supplies in New Zealand at present?
Robin Whyman: Just above 50%, so for a long time at sat around 50-51% but of course the government in 2021 changed the legislation which is around the Director General being able to direct Councils. Some of the Councils have started to fluoridate and if all of those directives come into action and when they do because some of them still have dates that come into effect we’ll get up to 60%. We could potentially if we got sort of all of the Councils or got all of the Councils that could fluoridate to fluoridate then you could probably get up to [inaudible].
Sean Plunket: So it’s not compulsory for Councils to fluoridate?
Robin Whyman: It’s not compulsory unless they have a directive from the Minister, sorry from the Director General of Health but many Councils over many years have been fluoridating anyway and that all remains in effect and they choose to do that still..
FFNZ:
Over the years, many Councils throughout New Zealand have ceased fluoridation because Fluoride Free NZ has been able to lobby Councils and stop the practice in those areas. These Councils include the following: Gore 1984, Timaru 1985, Ashburton 2002, The Far North 2009, New Plymouth 2011, Taumarunui 2012, Waipukurau 2012. This is the reason why control was moved from Local Government to Central government.
Sean Plunket:
Right okay, so we haven’t come to shove yet? We are still at push, if you know what I mean in terms of. And look you’ve got to understand for some people this is all about personal sovereignty and I won’t be compelled and I’m a sovereign citizen. You know. But you’re telling me that at the moment there is no compulsion but half the places in New Zealand decide it’s a good idea.
FFNZ:
The fluoridation directives are medical mandates which Winston Peters has described potential jailing of dissenting Councillors as being a “despotic Soviet-era disgrace”.
Robin Whyman:
Over a long period of time. Well, those 50% wouldn’t have been part of the directives, they would have been Councils making decisions over, some of them decades. It started in the 1950s in Hastings. Yeah.
FFNZ: Only 21 councils out of 67 (1/3) had fluoridation before the 2021 Amendment to the Health Act came into place.
Sean Plunket:
Okay, Does New Zealand have a, or its water supply, have a specific or greater need for fluoride than other places in the World? And I note, that from my memory the effects of fluoride came from a place in the States, or places where there was high fluoride in the water. People had discoloured teeth but bugger all decay.
Robin Whyman:
Yeah, that’s right. The discovery of fluoridation having an effect or fluoride in the water having an effect came from Grand Rapids in Michigan I think it was. Where they discovered that the teeth were going a bit brown which, is not what you want and that was because they had high levels of fluoride and they bought that down over a number of studies that they found that there was a sweet spot if you like which is 0.7 – 1, closer to 0.7ppm. In New Zealand, none of our water supplies have that naturally occurring. They all have a little bit because it’s there in the rocks and it comes through. No water supply in New Zealand is naturally fluoridated at the levels we need to prevent decay. So the only way we can get there is if we add fluoride to the water.
Sean Plunket:
But we add it in miniscule quantities.
Robin Whyman:
Yeah, the target range for most Councils is 0.7 – 0.8 parts per million.
Sean Plunket:
0.7 to 0.8 per million?
Robin Whyman:
Tiny amounts, yeah.
FFNZ:
Not one country in continental Europe fluoridates their water supply. Only a tiny minority of countries in the world fluoridates.
The amount of fluoride added to the water supply cannot be considered miniscule if it is lowering IQ and is associated with other health harm such as dental fluorosis, increasing bone fractures, lowering thyroid function, etc. Grandjean found that at 0.28ppm of urinary fluoride there was a lowering of IQ of 1 point. 0.7 – 0.8 is not a miniscule amount of fluoride.
Saying it is a miniscule amount is a nonsensical argument as they are adding it to water because they say if effects our bodies. So they obviously don’t think it’s miniscule.
It’s also interesting that Whyman says the amount is 0.7 to 0.8 when he knows the Ministry of Health recommends 0.7 to 1ppm and many communities are fluoridating are the higher end of this range.
Sean Plunket:
Okay, is the position of the association that this is a health measure which is beneficial to, in terms of the oral health of New Zealanders?
Robin Whyman:
Yes, absolutely. We’re persuaded strongly by the evidence that it improves oral health. We see the effects of poor oral health in terms of decay. At the lesser end where people need to spend money on fillings and things which is hard enough on its own but we see some very severe infections that people are getting very sick. So absolutely, we support fluoridation as part of the health tool but it’s only one thing.
Sean Plunket:
It’s in the tool kit.
Robin Whyman:
That’s right, that’s a good way to put it.
FFNZ:
See the Cochrane collaboration comment made above. The NZDA should be advocating for the implementation of the Scotland Childsmile program. Fluoride doesn’t work by swallowing so it isn’t any kind of ‘tool in the toolkit.
Sean Plunket:
I hate to do this to you but I want to ask you some of the arguments. And I use the term bloody loosely against fluoridation and see if you can address those. First up. It hardens the pituitary gland and it’s like a poison?
Robin Whyman:
Sorry, I missed the first bit Sean.
Sean Plunket:
It hardens the pituitary gland and leads to the loss of mental ability?
Robin Whyman:
There are two things there. The issue around the pituitary there is no evidence that that is the case at all.
Sean Plunket:
Okay.
Robin Whyman:
The issue about the intellectual development is one of the current controversies. There are a number of studies from around the world that have looked at this issue of IQ and children and they are not They certainly do not come down to the levels of 0.7, 0.8 parts per million in the water. There maybe an issue at high levels of fluoride in the water but even that’s controversial at the moment because a lot of those studies were confounded by what were the lead levels, what were the confounders, what were the social conditions those children were living in? And most of those things are not properly handled in those studies.
FFNZ:
Whyman is completely downplaying the US Government’s National Toxicology Program fluoride neurotoxicity research. The NTP found that 52 of 55 human IQ studies found a lowering of IQ. The average of which was a 7 IQ point reduction. The NTP found that there is a consistent association above 1.5ppm that fluoride lowers IQ. On the 6th of January 2025 the NTP authors published a paper in JAMA pediatrics which found that urinary fluoride levels (a proxy for total fluoride exposure) below 1.5ppm shows that fluoride is lowered IQ and that there was a dose response. The dose response means that as the fluoride exposure goes up, the IQ reduction is increased.
Whyman is also ignoring the 10 consecutive NIH-funded studies between 2017 and 2024 which show fluoride significantly impacts brain development in young children. These are the studies that make up the just-released NTP report on fluoride neurotoxicity. All studies were conducted at 0.7ppm. Canada fluoridates at 0.7ppm and Mexico at 0.7ppm equivalent with salt fluoridation. During the trial the US EPA agreed that the strongest studies are the NIH funded studies from the MIREC (Canadian) and ELEMENT (Mexico) data sets. Both areas fluoridate at lower levels than NZ 0.7 – 1ppm.
Also, there has been a recent study out of fluoridated Los Angeles, USA.
#1. Bashash et al. (2017) – Fluoride & IQ
#2. Thomas et al. (2018) – Fluoride & IQ
#3. Bashash et al. (2018) – Fluoride & ADHD
#4. Green et al. (2019) – Fluoride & IQ
#5. Till et al. (2020) – Fluoride & IQ
#6. Cantoral et al. (2021) – Fluoride & IQ
#7. Adkins et al. (2022) – Fluoride & Behavior
#8. Goodman et al. (2022) – Fluoride & IQ
#9. Hall et al. (2023) – Fluoride & IQ
#10. Malin et al. (2024) – Fluoride & Behavior
Sean Plunket:
I have had a bunch of people pointing to me to some lawyer and some case in the States recently which apparently proves that its all a great conspiracy. Are you aware of this case and what it decided and does it have any relevancy here?
FFNZ:
Sean was invited to listen to US Lawyer Michael Connett provide a world-class presentation outlining his successful Federal Court case where he sued the US Environmental Protection Agency. Sean failed to attend the presentation or to interview Michael while he was in NZ.
END OF INTERVIEW SHARED ON TWITTER BY THE PLATFORM.
Related posts
Robin Whyman has referred to the sweet spot of fluoridation at 0.7 ppm but forgotten to include the harm it has done to elderly people who have drunk that amount of Fluoride in Hastings over 50 years and ended up with excessively high blood serum levels.
One person was 5 times acceptable level and had suffered from thyroid condition since fluoridation in 1954. Another woman had 6 times the accepted level and suffered from collapse of her spine and severe arthritic pain. She died a month after this high fluoride level was discovered.
Neither her doctor nor dentist had tested her or made this connection. If you don’t look for the harm you won’t see it, although the white spots of fluorosis are easily seen on some children’s teeth.
Fluoride harm in Hastings & Havelock North may be visible in every bent over elderly person crossing the street and patient asking their doctor for more painkillers. Dr Whyman was shown the 2013 sample of blood tests data but did nothing to monitor the people in his own community in Wellington (fluoridated since 1965).
When he was in Hastings Dr Whyman ignored the harm done to elderly people and didn’t do further testing, neither did the Director General of Health. It is unacceptable that fluoridation continues without a basic fluoride testing being undertaken by doctors. Do the proper research please!
Referring to 0.7ppm is another disingenuous comment from Dr Whyman. He knows that the Ministry of Health recommends 0.7ppm to 1ppm. All fluoridating councils are fluoridating between that range – all of them over 0.7ppm. See Fluoride Levels in Water.
It is also notable that water was fluoridated at 1ppm in New Zealand from its introduction until the mid 1990s when the MoH quietly lowered the recommendation to the range of 0.7 to 1ppm.The USA lowered the target to 0.7ppm in 2015. It seems as if Dr Whyman is trying to quietly lower the levels used in New Zealand without having to admit they have been wrong for all these years.