GENRE: Email letter
TO: The Premier The Honourable Campbell Newman MP
The Minister of Health The Honourable Lawrence Springborg MP
AUTHOR: Ailsa B
DATE SENT: 16 January 2013
TITLE: Request Foley debate
STATUS: Awaiting response
UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below
The Premier The Honourable Campbell Newman MP
The Minister of Health The Honourable Lawrence Springborg MP
Dear Premier Newman and the Honourable Minister for Health
Please “require” Dr Michael Foley to debate fluoridation in Bundaberg
Making claims for fluoridation, such as those of Dr Michael Foley’s, and then running from a public debate on the issue, is the coward’s way out: such weakness is tantamount to admitting the claims made are unsubstantiated. The public perception can be that the claimant’s wares are not fit for consumption.
Please “require” Dr Foley to debate fluoridation at the Bundaberg Regional Council’s forum on 31st January, 2013.
“(Dr Foley) said he will not attend the council-run fluoride forum unless required by his superiors to do so.” (http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/dentist-shuns-sham-debate/1717175/#c483949)
It is unacceptable that Dr Foley claims safety and efficacy for fluoridation, in his bid to force others to consume an industrial-grade product known to originate in pollution scrubbers, then refuses to debate the issue.
If Dr Foley does not have irrefutable evidence to back his claims, it is a betrayal of trust to expose the public to his propaganda: that applies equally to politicians who knowingly allow public servants to avoid their duties of care.
In the event of Dr Foley being unable to attend as a debater, please require your Chief Health Officer Dr Jeannette Young (or another) to debate the issue in Dr Foley’s place. Dr Young makes elaborate claims about fluoridation’s safety so she too should be put to the blow-torch of public debate.
There should be no ifs or buts.
Dr Foley had no problem taking his power-point propaganda, “How to fight the fluoridation battle – based on experience from Queensland, Australia” to a dental conference in Japan, in October 2011. There, he highlighted surreptitious ways to win over those with the power to fluoridate:
[ASWLA comment: Original link was removed from public view [overnight], since this letter was written. By authors permission, ASWLA has supplied the correct information( from original link given) by way of two active links containing Dr Foley’s presentation:
Hereunder are some ploys contained in Dr Foley’s Dr Foley’s Japan presentation, in which he even suggested contrived approaches to politicians et al:
Slide 25: “Health professionals don’t make decisions on fluoridation; politicians do. We often think that politicians should eventually make all the right decisions, but that’s not how politics works. Get to know your local and national politicians. The most successful health organizations in Australia are those with very close contacts with politicians and political parties. They attend annual conferences held by political parties, and introduce themselves to politicians.
Do you have any dentists or other health professionals who are members of the major political parties? If so, encourage them to become more involved in their party. Does their party have a Health Policy Committee which provides advice to the Health Minister? If so, try to become a member of the committee to influence any decision on fluoridation and other dental issues.”
In Slide 32, below, there is the appearance of trickery; the inference that the 0.6 of one tooth surface difference claimed is a lie, when it is correct (Brunelle & Carlos 1990). As for the fluoridation chemicals: they (the industrial-grade chemicals) have never been safety tested but the implication below can be perceived as if they were. (Some batches are tested for heavy-metals’ and other content.)
Slide 32: “What other arguments do they (the anti-fluoridationists) use? – In the study of 39,000 children, in around 80 communities, the difference in the fluoridated areas is an average 0.6 of a tooth surface. That’s a benefit that’s almost immeasurable. … Fluoridation chemicals are untested and unsafe.”
Slide 44 is the humdinger: “Try to avoid debates in public or on radio or TV in which anti-fluoridationists also appear. Taking part in a debate with anti-fluoridationists gives them a respectability that they don’t deserve. Anti-fluoridationists are always keen to have a public debate since they rely on emotive language rather than science. Their arguments are usually simple, because they’re trying to convince the general public, not scientists. Most of their arguments are wrong, taken out of context, or out of date, but disproving anti-fluoridation claims takes considerably longer than making the claims in the first place, and some degree of doubt from the original claim will often still be left. In any case, even if you win the debate, simply holding a debate reinforces the perception that both sides have equally valid viewpoints. Don’t give them that respectability…”
My suspicion is that Dr Foley is now using his Slide 44 tactic in relation to his refusal to debate an opponent at the Bundaberg Council’s forum, 31/01/13; by saying, “… I am not going to give credibility to a view I find dangerous to the people of Queensland …”
If anyone’s view is dangerous, it belongs to any person who rigorously strives to force fluoridation on the masses while turning a blind eye to
- the meta-analysis of 27 of the above 36 studies, by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and the China Medical University in Shenyango, which found
- “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
- Over 40 animal studies showing that prolonged exposure to varying levels of fluoride can damage the brain, particularly when coupled with an iodine deficiency, or aluminium excess;
- 16 animal studies reporting that mice or rats ingesting fluoride have an impaired capacity to learn and remember’;
- 12 studies (7 human, 5 animal) linking fluoride with neurobehavioural deficits (e.g. impaired visual-spatial organization);
- 3 human studies linking fluoride exposure with impaired foetal brain development; and finally, and shockingly,
- reading ability lagging behind many developed nations; including the United States, England and Canada;
- Australia ranked 27th out of 45 countries for reading, with 21 of those countries performing significantly better.
- Australia’s mean score for reading similar to Poland, Lithuania and New Zealand (the latter also heavily fluoridated).
- One-quarter of Australian students did not meet the minimum acceptable standard of proficiency.
The school-yard bully is full of puff and posturing – until he meets his match!
Please “require” that Dr Foley, and/or Dr Jeannette Young, stand face-to-face with worthy opponents at the Bundaberg Regional Council’s Fluoridation Forum.