Lies, damned lies and fluoridation

I and others have repeatedly asked authorities to see the names of these alleged 60 countries, to check the lists validity. Finally after written requests and a meeting with a senior medical advisor, the decades long promotional claim came crashing down with a departmental letter that included:

The number of countries that fluoridate their drinking water is not intrinsic to this (fluoridation) policy development. The exact number is dependent on how the “fluoridation” is counted, but our policy is derived on the basis of best available science. I am bemused by the persistent discussion about “how many countries’ and consider it of little importance in policy development.

More than 30 years of using “60 countries” in every letter, booklet or press release for public consumption and it is dismissed as “of little importance”. Not a word of apology or “someone was telling fibs and has now been fired”.

What then is the number of countries? Best efforts to ascertain nations’ fluoridation status from World Health Organization data online and other sources reveal the following. Countries with more than 50 per cent of the population receiving fluoridated water are Australia, Columbia, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand and USA. Sixty? No, six so far, but stay with me. Hong Kong has most of its population on fluoride, but in 1988 reduced it to 0.5 parts fluoride per million parts water, half the standard amount. Malaysia may be on the list, but is hard to get exact figures for.

Next we have some countries with smaller proportions of people getting fluoridated via their water. This includes Canada, Britain, Brazil and possibly Israel. At best we are now up to around 12. To get much further we have to include countries with minor amounts of fluoridation, often a relic from an earlier time not yet decommissioned. For example Switzerland dropped off the list in May 2003 when they shut down their only fluoridation experiment, in the city of Basle. If we include every country that may fluoridate water in even one town, the list can possibly be stretched up to nearly 25.

For 30 years Australian dental and government authorities had no qualms telling the public that the number was 60. The Victorian government medico was “bemused”. Sure you can chuckle, but it does represent systematic misinformation to the public designed to influence acceptance of mass fluoride medication. It is a violation of informed consent.

Where to for the truth?

Other areas of misinformation promulgated by fluoridation authorities are too numerous to discuss here, and include the nature of the industrial, contaminated, non-pharmaceutical grade chemicals used.

Unethical conduct and provision of spin in place of accurate information is nothing new in healthcare. We particularly see it where profits of medical/pharmaceutical corporations are involved. Government health departments though are supposed to be the watchdogs that expose these shenanigans and protect the public. They are not supposed to be the agency peddling the spin.

It is time that state governments, or better the Federal government, undertook a completely independent, far reaching enquiry into fluoridation, including the motives and ethics behind its promotion. For the second time ever in Australia this enquiry should include a good representation of experts not beholden to any agency already involved in defending and promoting fluoridation. The 1997 the Brisbane Lord Mayor’s Taskforce was so constituted and brought down a recommendation against fluoridation. A decision about mass medication must be subject to scientific rigour, ample open public debate, and the highest standards of ethics and truthfulness.