If you are a willing or unwilling patient receiving medical treatment through a public water fluoridation programme, ask these five evidence-based questions to your doctor, your dentist, and the Ministry of Health.
1. What is the risk-benefit analysis comparing the dental benefits with potential harms from bone cancer1, thyroid disorders2, and lowered IQ3? How do you quantify the risks vs the rewards?
2. Is there any surveillance in place to monitor cases of fluoride overdose? If not, why not? How many New Zealanders are expected to suffer adverse health effects?
3. Why does the Ministry of Health advocate for internal ingestion of fluoride, instead of topical application? Scotland’s Childsmile4 program brings fluoridated toothpaste, toothbrushes, and hands-on oral hygiene instruction into the classroom. Why do you instead advocate for internal ingestion, when topical application is conclusively shown5 to be a superior method of delivering this medical treatment?
4. Why are the rates of dental decay so similar in non-fluoridated areas? If fluoridation is ‘demonstrably justifiable,’ why does Canterbury (unfluoridated) have similar rates6,7 of dental decay as Auckland (fluoridated)? The Cochrane Collaboration stated8 in 2015, “There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.” Does the Ministry of Health believe they are wrong?
5. Is a decrease of 7 IQ points functionally significant, or not? The original9 Royal Society report in 2014 said, “The claimed shift of less than one IQ point” is not functionally significant, but actually, the data from the Harvard review they cited showed a decrease of 7 IQ points, not one IQ point. When alerted to the discrepancy, the Royal Society report was amended10 to say, “The claimed shift of less than one standard deviation” is not functionally significant. A standard deviation is 15 IQ points. Do you think the demonstrated decrease of 7 IQ points in children who drink fluoridated water is functionally significant, or not?
1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16596294/
2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38029816/
3 https://linktr.ee/18toxicfluoridestudies
4 https://www.childsmile.nhs.scot/
5 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15153698/
7 https://fluoridefree.org.nz/information/dental-health/new-zealand-dental-studies/
8 https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/full
9 https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/nz-august2014.pdf
These questions have been written by Caelan Huntress, who was poisoned by an overdose of fluoride as a child. Dr. Diana Sarfati, the Director-General of Health to New Zealand, ordered the Waitaki District to fluoridate their water supply. As an unwilling patient of this forced medication, he publicly challenged her to provide answers to these 5 questions in a recorded Zoom consultation. So far, she has not responded.
“These are reasonable questions. Dr. Sarfati should be able to answer them. Fluoride’s always been controversial. Dr. Sarfati says she wants to inform and educate. Well, it’s time she got started. Her silence is deafening. Our community deserves better.”
– Jim Hopkins, Waitaki District Councillor
When asked to provide answers to these 5 questions in an OIA request, this was the Ministry of Health’s response:
If you are a doctor, a dentist, or a representative of the Ministry of Health, will you answer these 5 questions?
Leave a Reply