F.A.N. Newsletter

In a statement released on August 3 in Brisbane, Merilyn Haines, on behalf of FAN-Australia, issued a damning critique of the government's National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC) 2017 "sham" review of water fluoridation.  Haines explains that this is the latest attempt by the NHMRC to mislead the Australian public and decision-makers that water fluoridation is safe, effective and ethical. 

According to Haines, "In order for this government agency to deliver a "rubber stamp" endorsement of government policy, it had to corrupt both science and the democratic process.

Haines hopes that when people see how the NHMRC has behaved there will be so much outcry from citizens and scientists - both inside Australia and around the world - that it will trigger a demand for a Royal Commission investigation.

Merilyn has asked us to get as many supporters as we can to write personal letters and emails to the Australian Ambassadors in their country (for forwarding to the Australian Prime Minister and the state premiers).  See template and addresses below.

As you know, governments in fluoridating countries have the power to write biased reports like this and get away with it. However, they have less power to control their image outside the country. This is why we need your help. URGENTLY.

Please send in a letter (or email) as soon as you can to your Australian embassy (see contact details below) and a copy to us at: paul@fluoridealert.org and mhaines@bigpond.com

In these short letters we recommend the following format:

Dear Ambassador,

(Include an introductory sentence about yourself including how many years you have been following, or researching, water fluoridation.)

Would you please forward my concerns about the corrupt way the NHMRC conducted its review of water fluoridation to the Australian Prime Minister and State premiers.

Clearly, the NHMRC stacked the decks with pro-fluoridation experts to get the result the government wanted. (or include information you find particularly shocking from Merilyn Haines list of 23 manipulations.)

If left standing this NHMRC review will greatly damage the scientific credibility and reputation of the Australian government.

Sincerely…

---

FAN Australia's Media Release, Brisbane, Australia, Aug. 3, 2017

Today, on behalf FAN-Australia, Merilyn Haines called for a Royal Commission to investigate the manner in which the Australian government’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) conducted a review of the safety, effectiveness and ethics of Water Fluoridation.

Haines charges that the 2017 NHMRC review of water fluoridation was unprofessional, unscientific, biased, highly selective, deeply flawed and prevented meaningful scientific and public input and was clearly biased in favor of defending the practice of water fluoridation - a long-standing government policy.

The NHMRC produced a very poor review in 2007 which received extensive criticism from independent scientists. To produce an even more biased and restrictive review in 2017 is even more egregious in lieu of the new science published (or updated) since 2007. 

For example, the 2015 Cochrane review (a gold standard when it comes to meta-analysis of health issues) found little in the way of high quality studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation. On safety, there have now been over 300 published animal and human studies indicating that fluoride is neurotoxic. This large body of evidence has been largely ignored by the NHMRC, even though it is being currently scrutinized by the National Institute of Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the USA.

In this analysis, 23 specific examples of NHMRC manipulations have been documented.  Here is a selection of the 23 examples.  The NHMRC, 

1.   Stacked the fluoride review committee with fluoridation lobbyists and advocates.

2.   Broke a promise to include experts opposed to fluoridation.

3.   Secretly commissioned a new study on dental effects (previously listed as “out of scope”), when the 2015 Cochrane Collaboration review didn’t deliver a convincing  pro-fluoridation position.

4.   Falsely claimed that there is no evidence that fluoride interferes with thyroid function.

5.    Falsely claimed a low-quality IQ study (Broadbent et al, 2014) was a high-quality study.

6.    Downplayed, dismissed or excluded evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity.

7.   Excluded a significant study linking fluoridation to ADHD (Malin and Till, 2015).

8.   Failed to refute the Bassin (2006) osteosarcoma study but still continued to maintain no evidence of a link between fluoridation and cancer.

10.   Based its claims of safety largely on its 2007 review, however, its 2007 review was largely a copy of the 2000 York University review, which according to the York Review’s Professor Sheldon did NOT show fluoridation to be safe!

11. Failed to acknowledge that poor kidney function increases uptake of fluoride into the bones and poses risks over a lifetime. 

13. Abandoned the normal evaluation method for studies of fluoride’s effectiveness almost certainly in an effort to disguise the fact that most of the studies reviewed were of low, or very low quality.

15. Violated its own selection criteria by including a) an unpublished work; b) a narrative and c) an abstract (all favorable to fluoridation).

17. Claims fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 26-44 % - but without indicating just how small such reductions are in absolute terms – often less than one tooth surface out of over 100 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth!

18. Dishonestly claims fluoridation is safe by excluding important studies on spurious grounds, ignoring many others, and even cherry-picking weak studies that serve their purpose (e.g. Broadbent on IQ).

20. Perverted the principles of medical ethics by presenting a bogus ethical claim constructed by lobbyists rather than ethicists.

23. The NHMRC’s extraordinary effort to maintain the dubious claims that fluoridation is safe, effective and ethical, are becoming more and more desperate by the year. NHMRC 2007 was very bad, NHMRC 2017 verges on fraud.

*For the full list of the 23 items see Haines media release:

• Press Release from Fluoride Action Network Australia: A damning critique and analysis of the NHMRC’s 2017 “Sham” review of water fluoridation and appeal for Royal Commission Inquiry: 23 Reasons why Australia needs a Royal Commission into the NH MRC’s fraudulent fluoride review. August 3.

*For the full report see:

• A damning critique and analysis of the NHMRC’s 2017 “Sham” review of water fluoridation and appeal for Royal Commission Inquiry: 23 Reasons why Australia needs a Royal Commission into the NHMRC’s fraudulent fluoride review.  By Merilyn Haines on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia. August 3.

• To contact Merilyn Haines: contact@fluoridealertaustralia.org  MOB 0418-777-112

---

Australian Embassy Contact Information: 

United States

The Hon. Mr. Joe Hockey

Australian Embassy in Washington DC, United States of America1601 Massachusetts Ave , Washington DC NW 20036-2273, United States of America

Email: public.affairsus@dfat.gov.au

Canada

High Commissioner H.E. Mr. Tony Negus AO APM
Australian High Commission in Ottawa, Canada
Suite 710, 50 OConnor Street , Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 6L2, Canada

Email: business@dfat.gov.au

New Zealand

High Commissioner H.E. Mr. Peter Woolcott AO
Australian High Commission in Wellington, New Zealand
72-76 Hobson Street, Thorndon, PO Box 4036, Wellington, New Zealand

Email: nzinbox@dfat.gov.au

Ireland

The Hon. Mr. Richard Andrews

Australian Embassy in Dublin, Ireland 7th Floor, Fitzwilton House, Wilton Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland
Email: austremb.dublin@dfat.gov.au

United Kingdom

The Hon Alexander Downer, AC - High Commissioner
Australian High Commission in London, England (UK) Australia House, The Strand, London WC 2B 4LA, United Kingdom

Email: GeneralEnquiries.LhLh@dfat.gov.au

 

Sincerely,

Paul Connett, PhD
Senior Advisor
Fluoride Action Network

See all FAN bulletins online