Response to last night’s pro-fluoridation article on ABC1’s Catalyst


GENRE: Email letter

TO:  Various email Bcc list

AUTHOR: James Fairbairn

DATE SENT:   Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:39:10 -0400

TITLE: Response to last night’s pro-fluoridation article on ABC1’s Catalyst
STATUS: No response required.

UPDATES:  Please post all updates and comments in the LEAVE A REPLY section below.

EXTERNAL LINKS: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821248.htm

Response to last night’s pro-fluoridation article on ABC1’s Catalyst

When we heard that Catalyst (ABC1 last night, 8 pm Thursday 8th August) – was doing a story on water fluoridation tonight we were concerned  that  it would be  very one –sided  biased  promotion of water fluoridation, especially when it was  pre-promoted as “ how it protects your  teeth “

When we heard that Catalyst was interviewing Qld Health Dentist Michael Foley and Prof Michael Moore, both very ardent lobbyists for fluoridation, and we were flatly ignored when we offered to be interviewed to provide an alternative view point, we were certain that it would one sided.

Michael Foley has traveled the length and breadth of Qld promoting continuing forced fluoridation to councils. In his presentations he even claims that fluoride is an essential nutrient. Michael Moore, a toxicologist, has written to every council in Qld urging them to continue forced fluoridation.

Michael Foley was given open slather by Catalyst – he claimed that a 1996 study showed there was a massive difference between tooth decay in  fluoridated Townsville and unfluoridated Brisbane . The study actually showed for children aged  6 to 12 years  the  average difference was only 0.23 of one tooth surface ( when there are over a hundred tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth).  The authors conceded that this difference in tooth decay in  children’s permanent teeth  was almost insignificant, yet Michael Foley claimed this was a massive difference.

The very pro-fluoride Centre for Disease Control in the USA has for a number of years acknowledged that the main action of fluoride is topical (touches teeth) rather than systemic  (swallowed).  This poses a problem for fluoridation promoters because toothpaste used for a  topical effect  (with 1000 ppm fluoride  has a 1000 times more fluoride than fluoridated water. If 1ppm had a significant topical effect then toothpaste manufacturers would only have to make toothpaste with 1ppm fluoride, instead, in recent years they have introduced  toothpaste with 5000 ppm.  Michael Foley however, incredulously claimed that water fluoridation had some systemic effect, but a much greater topical effect.

Michael Moore quoted that the NHMRC 2007 Fluoride review as having 5,500 studies (it actually only INCLUDED 113 studies) and he neglected to mention that it was largely based on the 2000 York University Review. Prof Trevor Sheldon the Chair of the York Review, wrote to the House of Lords complaining about Medical and Dental Assn misusing the findings of the York Review. The York University review certainly didn’t find fluoridation was safe.

Michael Moore also quoted one paper on Osteosarcoma (which used cancer patients as their normal controls) but certainly didn’t quote the 2006  Osteosarcoma study by Bassin et al, the finding linking exposure of boys in childhood to water fluoridation to increased  risk of later developing Osteosarcoma,  have never been refuted and still hold.

If you didn’t see this Catalyst program, the transcript can be read and Vodcast can be viewed HERE

If you feel, as we do that Catalyst story was very biased, you might wish to do or more of the following

(1) put a comment  on the bottom of the Catalyst story on the website

(2) send an email to Catalyst catalyst@your.abc.net.au 

(3) or  complain to Media Watch mediawatch@your.abc.net.au 

(4) even possibly  put a complaint on ABC website Audience & Consumer Complaints  http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm

Never forget that this argument is not about whether or not water fluoridation has some small statistical benefit when dealing with tooth decay in children. It is about whether it is ethical for the state to allow industrial waste chemicals to be dumped into to your drinking water supply, medicating you with an uncontrolled dosage of a toxin that has proven multiple adverse effects on humans.

If we’re wrong then 96% of countries in the world are also wrong and have been since this first started in the USA over 60 years ago, and here in Australia 50 years ago.

Many thanks,

James & Derek.

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s