GENRE: Email: To Dr Yunus & Dr Strahan
TITLE: Attn: Dr. Daud Yunus & Dr. Martin Strahan – Re: Issue of Public Health
AUTHOR: Daniel Z
DATE WRITTEN: Sent 16th December 2012 (with Bcc list)
STATUS: Unreplied to, as of 24th December, 2012
UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below.
FURTHER READING: ISBN: 9781603582872 The Case Against Fluoride (Connett, Beck & Micklem)
Dear Dr. Yunus & Dr. Strahan,
I am writing in response to the two articles linked below, in which you both feature as prominent leaders of the protest against Bundaberg Regional Council’s anti-fluoride stance:
Article #1 (28th Nov 2012):
Article #2 (14th Dec 2012):
Dr. Yunus, according to Article #2, you are the actual leader of this charge to ensure the practice of artificial water fluoridation is upheld by Council. You therefore, will be held most responsible for fraudulent statements. In this email, however, I wish to take partiuclar issue with Dr. Strahan’s public statements (my responses immediately below his comments):
COMMENTS: Bundaberg Health Promotions chairman Dr Martin Strahan said he was among a number of health professionals in the region who wanted to push the benefits of fluoridation with the council… We think health professionals are firmly in favour of it.
RESPONSE: I’ll see your regional local medicos; and raise you: A Nobel Prize for Medicine winner, a few NRC Panel Members, an NRC Panel Chair,[1-2] a former Professor of Chemistry, a former Federal Minister for Health, and a few more for good measure.
COMMENTS: Dr Strahan said the benefits of adding fluoride to water had been well studied. Studies had found the recommended range of fluoride in water was between 0.6-1.1mg/L. This could reduce dental decay in children by 40%.”It’s not a guarantee, but it can make a huge impact,” he said.
RESPONSE: “Even when very large sample sizes are used to obtain statistically significant results, the benefit of water fluoridation is not a clinically relevant one.”
COMMENTS: Dr Strahan said it had been found that children from lower socio-economic status benefited most because they often did not have ideal dental hygiene practices at home.
RESPONSE: “The evidence [for water fluoridation] about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.”
COMMENTS: “It’s safer to fluoridate the water so the dosage can be controlled,” he said.
RESPONSE: Seriously, Dr. Strahan, are you freakin’ kidding me? How do you plan on ‘controlling’ how much water people drink per day?[8-9]
COMMENTS: “Dr Strahan said there was no evidence the fluoridation of water caused cancer or any other health problems.”
RESPONSE: That’s a pretty bold statement, considering the fact that no health agency is rigorously monitoring for potential health problems, and the best review the NHMRC can produce, is a piece of trash.[10-11]
COMMENTS: “But he said there were some people who would never accept it was safe.”
RESPONSE: Okay then, Doctor! Produce the scientific evidence that fluoridation is “safe” and “effective;” then explain how mandatory water fluoridation can be justified against the medical principle of informed consent to medication; and then people may stop complaining. Until you do so, go to hell with your unreferenced draconian rhetoric!
Doctors, you should both shake your heads in shame. Using your positions of high professional standing within the local community to promote an unethical and scientifically fraudulent practice, is reprehensible.
Do yourselves and your community a favour and end this silliness. Start by reading The Case Against Fluoride: http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/isfr-reviews-the-case-against-fluoride/
Consider it a Xmas gift tip.