New Zealand Fluoridation Fraud
The Smoking GunThis NZ fraud begins with a smoking gun letter (dated Oct. 12, 1962) from G. H. Leslie the director of NZ Government dentistry – who EIGHT years into the 10-year Hastings-Napier trial (1954-64) complains that they cannot find the evidence to convincingly demonstrate a relationship between fluoridation and lower tooth decay. It is amazing to me that people in NZ who have been made aware of this letter and its aftermath still “believe” in fluoridation and blithely continue to trust NZ dental health officials. But for how much longer?
Here is a copy of that letter containing a very candid assessment pertaining to the Hastings –Napier trial. :
I have typed out this letter to make it easier for people to read, as some of the letters are not clear:
12 October, 1962
I have delayed acknowledging receipt of Dr. Roche’s letter to you and replying to your minute in the hope that I would by now be able to give a positive reply to your enquiry. I still cannot.
No one is more conscious than I am of the need for proof of the value of fluoridation in terms of reduced treatment. It is something which has been concerning me for a long time. It is only a matter of time before I will be asked questions and I must have an answer with meaning to a layman or I am going to be embarrassed and so is everyone else connected with fluoridation. But it is not easy to get. On the contrary it is proving extremely difficult. Mr. Espia is conferring with Mr. Bock and Mr. Ludwig and I am hopeful that in due course they will be able to make a practical suggestion.
I will certainly not rest easily until a simple method has been devised to prove the equation fluoridation = less fillings
Director, Division of Dental HealthWith this letter we have what amounts to a “smoking gun” as far as the inability of NZ dental officials and researchers to show the effectiveness of fluoridation – some eight years into the ten-year Hastings-Napier fluoridation trial. The Mr. Ludwig, who Leslie refers to, is the lead researcher for this trial.
The miraculous turnaroundHowever, miraculously, two years later this trial was proclaimed a great success in demonstrating that fluoridation resulted in a large reduction in tooth decay (over 60%) and the result was used to push for fluoridation throughout the country. So how in the space of two years was this dramatic turnaround achieved?
The answer came from the late Dr. John Colquhoun, the former Chief Dental Officer for Auckland, who after retirement did a PhD thesis on the history of fluoridation in New Zealand (Colquhoun, 1987). As part of his doctoral research he was allowed access to the official files on the Hastings-Napier trial (though according to his thesis advisor Professor Robert Mann, it became evident that some were incomplete, especially regarding Napier). Based on these official files he was able to see how the deception was orchestrated.
In his thesis and in an article published in The Ecologist (Colquhoun and Mann, 1986) he showed that the massive reduction in tooth decay claimed for Hastings was a complete artifact.
According to Colquhoun the Hastings deception was in three parts:
1) After about two years the control city of Napier was dropped for bogus reasons.
2) The reduction in tooth decay claimed was based on comparing tooth decay in Hastings at the beginning and the end of the trial (and not a comparison between tooth decay in Hastings and Napier).
3) The method of diagnosing tooth decay was changed during the trial.Colquhoun describes this third aspect of the deception:
“The school dentists in the area of the experiment were instructed to change their method of diagnosing tooth decay…
Before the experiment they had filled (and classified as "decayed") teeth with any small catch on the surface, before it had penetrated the outer enamel layer.
After the experiment began, they filled (and classified as "decayed") only teeth with cavities, which penetrated the outer enamel layer.
It is easy to see why a sudden drop in the numbers of "decayed and filled" teeth occurred. This change in method of diagnosis was not reported in any of the published accounts of the experiment.”What qualifies these activities as scientific fraud, in my view, is the last sentence: “This change in method of diagnosis was not reported in any of the published accounts of the experiment.”
No rebuttal, No refutation
To the best of my knowledge the evidence that Colquhoun and Mann put forward for this rigged trial has never been refuted. In an email I received from Robert Mann (Dec 22, 2013), he wrote:
“I have never been aware of any attempt at rebuttal, let alone a refutation.”
I would be anxious to hear from anyone who can persuade us that the whole fluoridation program in NZ was not based on fraud.