Attn. Dr. Wayne Herdy; Re: article comments (10th Dec 2012)

GENRE: Email letter

TITLE: Attn. Dr. Wayne Herdy; Re: article comments (10th Dec 2012)

AUTHOR: Daniel Z

DATE WRITTEN: 10th December, 2012

STATUS: No responses, 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)


Attn: Dr. Wayne Herdy:

Re: Dr. Herdy’s comments in:

Dear Dr. Herdy,

I have noted your comments in the article linked above. All I see is hot air, with no sources to back your claims; generally a pathetic attempt to use your position of authority to massage readers with superficial pro-fluoridation rhetoric.

If someone dug you up to do this and told you what to say, you’ve been had. If you did this on your own initiative, then I am flabbergasted that you would be willing to go public with such an obviously superficial understanding of the fluoridation issue and literature.

Either way, your comments are ill-informed and irresponsible.

Shame on the Editor of Sunshine Coast Daily for allowing you to be presented as “A LEADING Sunshine Coast doctor” and “Sunshine Coast Local Medical Association president.” These you may be, but due to this approach, the reader is prompted to accept you as an authority on the issue in question, which allows you to get away with embarrassingly weak statements such as those below:

“Anybody, especially somebody in a prominent position such as a politician, arguing for this is arguing from a position of great ignorance and is highly irresponsible… Fluoride has been in the water (around Australia) for decades and there is no evidence whatsoever of anybody coming to any harm… There is certainly a considerable body of evidence worldwide that there is a significant reduction in dental care[sic] areas where there is fluoride in the drinking water.”

Firstly, how dare you have the gall and the arrogance to claim that anyone opposing fluoridation as mass medication[1] is coming from a position of ignorance; when your own ignorance is shimmering in the Queensland sun for all to see, hidden in plain sight within the text of a pathetic excuse for a news article?

Secondly, how dare you claim there is no evidence of harm from fluoridation when no health agency in fluoridated countries is adequately monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects; and no Grade A randomized trials have been conducted to demonstrate the safety of the practice?[2]

Thirdly, how dare you claim there is an overwhelming body of evidence worldwide that supports the notion that systemic ingestion of fluoride has a direct correlation with dental caries reduction, when this ‘evidence’ you mention is shockingly weak? Furthermore, why do you muddy the water with the term “worldwide,” when you must be aware that most countries/regions do not fluoridate their water (e.g. Europe); and dental caries rates were already falling prior to the introduction of artificial fluoridation programs in select countries?

If you insist, however, on using the term “worldwide,” I can do that too (from the CRD’s ‘What the ‘York Review’ on the fluoridation of drinking water really found’):

“We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.”[3]

Dr. Herdy, I am not so much shocked at your lack of knowledge (as you are a busy GP, this could be understood[4]), but more so your willingness to make such incorrect and arrogant statements publicly, using your position of supposed “authority” to perpetuate the ethical and scientific disgrace, that is mandatory water fluoridation. As a doctor, how can you possibly actively promote a measure that denies individuals the right to informed consent to medication?

Moreover, how dare you chastise a politician for – as you claim – being “ignorant,” “irresponsible” and speaking from a “prominent position”? No. YOU, SIR, are the one speaking from a prominent position, and spouting irresponsible ignorance! If anyone here is doing their job, it is this politician (by expressing the concerns of his Electorate); it is certainly not you and certainly not the health departments of Australia. YOU and your pro-fluoridation cronies are the ones making the claim that fluoridation is “safe” and “effective” – THEREFORE, it is YOU that have the burden of proof; not those opposing the measure.

Your comments cited in the aforementioned article mislead the public into believing there is overwhelming evidence for the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation. With a simple few clicks of the mouse, the links below demonstrate that neither of these claims have been proven scientifically.

Thus, your claims are inaccurate and misleading; you are abusing your position of respect and authority within the community; you are promoting a practice that is highly unethical; you are proving yourself to have absolutely no true authority to speak about the primary fluoridation literature; and if you do not write to the Editor of the newspaper in question and give the other side of the story, the public has a right to withdraw its trust from you, on this matter.

The people are fed up with this garbage from those who should be protecting their health. If you think I am alone in my outrage against your weak and arrogant statements on this issue, you will add yet another incorrect assumption to your list of egregious errors.

In addition to the links provided [1-4] below, I highly recommend that you order a copy of the book, ‘The Case Against Fluoride’ by Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck, and Dr. Spedding Micklem ( ISBN: 9781603582872 ).[5] I suggest you pass it around to the other doctors in your clinic, so they become aware that they can no longer take your word at face value, on issues of fluoridation policy.


Daniel Z | Independent Researcher/Writer

[1] Fluoridation as medication

[2] Lack of health/safety studies

[3] Weak evidence for ‘benefit’ / systemic theory flaws / fluoridation’s international status / international decay trends / CRD statement

[4] Individual health professionals / ‘do no harm’ motto

[5] The Case Against Fluoride


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s