Letter to the Editor: ‘Bitter Tears, Deaf Ears – In Defense of Maz’

GENRE: Email to Newspaper Editor

TITLE: Letter to the Editor: ‘Bitter Tears, Deaf Ears – In Defense of Maz’

AUTHOR: Daniel Z

DATE WRITTEN: 28th December, 2012

STATUS: Pending reply, as of 28th December, 2012

UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below.

FURTHER READING: The Case Against Fluoride (Connett, Beck, Micklem)(2010); Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma (Dr Albert Burgstahler)(1978); Fluoride Fatigue (2008) (Bruce Spittle)

TO: editorial@geelongindependent.com.au  Bcc: Various email lists

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to the article, Bitter tears of allergy victim (17th August 2012).[1]

In 1991, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council stated, “it is desirable to explore in a rigorous fashion” the claimed symptoms of hypersensitivity to fluoride, since these claims are being made “with sufficient frequency to justify well-designed studies.”[2]

In 2006, the US National Research Council made a similar call for rigorous studies to be conducted, to determine which fluoridation chemicals may cause hypersensitivity in certain individuals.[3]

These studies have not been conducted in Australia, nor in any other fluoridating nation, yet the Government seems quite happy to proceed with a “business as usual” approach, casually sweeping claims by those like Mez under a very dirty, moldy and heavy carpet.

According to former Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology Professor, Dr. Paul Connett, “it is certainly a very distinct and plausible possibility” that these anecdotal reports have medical validity.[4]

As noted by Connett, Beck & Micklem (2010), “it is long past time that governments that promote fluoridation investigated this matter in a rigorous scientific manner, as recommended by a number of independent observers.”[5]

Former Chemistry Professor, Dr. Albert Burgstahler – co-author of Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma (1978),[6] in the foreword to Dr. Bruce Spittle’s book, Fluoride Fatigue (2008) – remarks, “those who deny reality and persist in discounting sensitivity to fluoride in drinking water are like ostriches with their heads in the sand.”[7]

Until the Australian Government can produce the necessary primary health studies[8] that establish an adequate margin of safety[9] to protect the population, then no matter how many times they repeat their “safe and effective” mantra, it’s just hot air.

‘Spin’ is not science, it’s the specialised bureaucratic art form of public relations. Only science is science, and sadly, the health departments of Australia are more interested in protecting their fluoridation policy than the health of the people.


[1] http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/indy/surfcoast/302/story/153832.html

[2] http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/the_case_against_fluoride (p. 135)

[3] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=303


[5] http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/the_case_against_fluoride (p. 136)

[6] http://www.whale.to/b/waldbott_h.html

[7] http://www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf (p. v)

[8] http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/ (#9-10)

[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDYTzsvRZp8


3 comments on “Letter to the Editor: ‘Bitter Tears, Deaf Ears – In Defense of Maz’

  1. Pingback: Rebuttal: Queensland Health, FAQ’s | Research Blog

  2. Pingback: Key Critical Questions | Research Blog

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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