GENRE: Email letter
TO: The Editor, The Courier Mail
AUTHOR: Daniel Z
DATE SENT: Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:46 PM
TITLE: Letter to the Editor, Re: Dr Jeannette Young’s recent public comments on fluoridation
STATUS: Awaiting response
UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below
Queensland’s Chief Health Officer, Jeannette Young is a medical doctor, who would obviously be aware of the principle of “informed consent” to medication – a fundamental pillar of medical ethics, next to “do no harm.”
One wonders how Dr. Young can therefore support the practice of water fluoridation. Fluoridation chemicals are added to water for the express purpose of treating patients (i.e. the community) for a disease (i.e. dental decay). By any definition, this constitutes medication.
The difference with fluoridation, as opposed to normal individual delivery of a medication, is that there is no way to control how much people consume each day, because water authorities cannot control how much they will drink; nor how much fluoride they will be exposed to from other sources.
Furthermore, no health agency is monitoring for side effects in potentially sensitive sub-populations, such as the elderly, those with impaired kidney or lowered thyroid function, infants, those with low iodine levels, and so on.
Where are the primary health studies and randomised controlled trials to prove fluoridation works, and is safe? The York Review (2000) could not find a single one.
Six years later, the Panel Chair of the extensively-researched NRC Report (2006), Dr. John Doull, said, “when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on.“
I therefore ask the Chief Health Officer of Queensland: How does she plan on establishing an adequate margin of safety to protect all the people of her state from the potential effects of water fluoridation, when she cannot control the dose they are receiving; when she is not monitoring them for side effects; and she has no high quality scientific evidence to support her assertions of “safety” and “effectiveness”? Would she be prepared to defend her position in open public debate? If not, why not?