GENRE: Email Letter
TITLE: Re: Your ‘slap-down’ (December 09, 2012)
AUTHOR: Daniel Z
DATE WRITTEN: 9th December, 2012
STATUS: No response, as of 31st December, 2012
UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below.
FURTHER READING: The Case Against Fluoride (Connett, Beck, Micklem, 2010)
ATTN: John-Paul Langbroek, Minister for Education, Training and Employment
Dear Minister Langbroek,
Before I respond to your comments (cited in the article above), please note I have dropped the “Hon” prefix from your name. Your despicable arrogance over time on the issue of water fluoridation – stemming from your twisted and misguided views on the ethics and scientific validity of the practice – should preclude you from ever having the word “Honourable” precede your name. Your thuggish attempts to silence your colleague, Jason Woodforth, from speaking out on water fluoridation policy, reeks of desperation cowering behind the mask of puffed up authority.
You, Minister, like to introduce yourself as a “former dentist”. I suggest you stick to the confines of your profession, i.e. the topical treatment of teeth within the walls of a dental clinic, and reading related studies. You are not qualified to make sweeping, unreferenced assertions regarding the purported ‘safety’ and ‘effectiveness’ of a wide-scale systemic treatment of the population. Fortunately, many other dentists – for example, Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD DDS – are not so stubborn; and have withdrawn their support for fluoridation, in acknowledgment of the scientific and ethical emptiness of the practice.
I note that you were born in The Netherlands. You may be interested to learn that your home country does not fluoridate its public water supplies.
I won’t ramble on, but I will leave you with two reality checks, which I sincerely hope will dodge the delete button on your secretary’s screen, and ultimately, finally, break through to the rational/reasonable part of your brain.
Faith is not science, Minister. Your faith in fluoridation is blinding you to the fundamental flaws of the practice. I suggest you get acquainted with proper, informed arguments against fluoridation and start taking them seriously.
If you cannot demonstrate to the public that you are willing or able to educate yourself on basic facts, nor tackle professional opponents in open public debate, I weep for the state of Queensland with you as Minister for Education. How can you be Minister for Education if you are unwilling to educate even yourself? How can you claim a ‘high ground’ and use this to bully your fellow party members into silence on the issue of fluoridation, when you can do no more than act like a pro-fluoridation parrot, citing nothing but hot air as evidence for your claims?
I suggest that you try to bully someone your own size or bigger, and let’s see how far you get.
Daniel Z, Independent Researcher
 Weak evidence/flawed theory of systemic benefit:
 Informed arguments against fluoridation: