NZ - Far North Fluoridation Report Critiqued
Far North Fluoridation Report Critiqued
Wednesday, 23 December, 2009 - 16:01 "Scientifically unsound and academically dishonest" is how a peer review describes the Northland District Health Board's report on the Far North fluoridation trial of 2007-2009. The review was sent today to the Far North District Council by Fluoride Action Network NZ Inc; New Zealand's experts in the science against fluoridation. A copy is available on FANNZ website www.fannz.org.nz.
The equipment failure throughout the entire study means any benefits must have come from other causes, such as the range of dental health programmes conducted at the same time, the review says.
The review recommends, amongst other things, that the FNDC classify the NDHB's report "as an 'opinion piece', to be afforded no probative value until the raw data is released to the FNDC and FANNZ for independent peer-review."
"The NDHB refuses to allow independent peer review of its data, even though its claimed 'obligation of confidence' to participants ended when the report was published" says Mark Atkin (BSc), author of the review.
All data was assigned a code number to ensure anonymity of participants. In signing the consent forms participants' parents agreed that this was adequate protection of confidentiality. "So what is the problem?" asks Mr Atkin.
The FNDC will next discuss fluoridation, and proposals for a public referendum, at its February meeting.
"Given the weight that the previous Council decided would be given to this report, we felt it important that councillors have an independent peer review of it. The review has been checked by a medical doctor and dentist, so this is not just a lay person's opinion" stresses Mr Atkin.
Wednesday, 23 December, 2009 - 16:01 "Scientifically unsound and academically dishonest" is how a peer review describes the Northland District Health Board's report on the Far North fluoridation trial of 2007-2009. The review was sent today to the Far North District Council by Fluoride Action Network NZ Inc; New Zealand's experts in the science against fluoridation. A copy is available on FANNZ website www.fannz.org.nz.
The equipment failure throughout the entire study means any benefits must have come from other causes, such as the range of dental health programmes conducted at the same time, the review says.
The review recommends, amongst other things, that the FNDC classify the NDHB's report "as an 'opinion piece', to be afforded no probative value until the raw data is released to the FNDC and FANNZ for independent peer-review."
"The NDHB refuses to allow independent peer review of its data, even though its claimed 'obligation of confidence' to participants ended when the report was published" says Mark Atkin (BSc), author of the review.
All data was assigned a code number to ensure anonymity of participants. In signing the consent forms participants' parents agreed that this was adequate protection of confidentiality. "So what is the problem?" asks Mr Atkin.
The FNDC will next discuss fluoridation, and proposals for a public referendum, at its February meeting.
"Given the weight that the previous Council decided would be given to this report, we felt it important that councillors have an independent peer review of it. The review has been checked by a medical doctor and dentist, so this is not just a lay person's opinion" stresses Mr Atkin.
posted by Bill at
9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home