Anti-fluoride activists unhappy about scientific research

By Ken Perrott 21/08/2014

Mark Atkin (“Science and legal advisor” for FFNZ) and Mary Byrne (“National Co-ordinator and media contact” for FFNZ) promote their “magic” fluoride free water.

These activists have a really weird understanding of science and the nature of scientific research. How’s this for press releases from the NZ Fluoride Free Science and Legal Advisor, Mark Atkin:

1: Rubbishing a planned review of the published science around fluoridation by Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science advisor) and the NZ Royal society. Mark declares the review is “totally one-sided” and that Gluckman admits this (see Secret Fluoridation Review Totally One-Sided Admits Chair)!

And what is Atkin’s “evidence” for that? Well Gluckman did say:

“this is just straightforward scientists reviewing what’s in the peer reviewed literature about what we know about the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water. It is reviewing the scientific literature.”

And Atkin chose to distort that to mean:

This “‘review’ of water fluoridation will only look at research that supports fluoridationists’ belief in ‘the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water’, says Sir Peter Gluckman, co-chair of this thereby-admitted ‘kangaroo review’.
It is no wonder that scientific studies showing water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective have not been sought for this bogus ‘review’.”

Mark Atkin seems to have a serious comprehension problem.

2: Claiming Waikato University is commissioning research to obtain  predetermined conclusions.

The same day Atkin produced another press release (see Predetermined ‘research’ outcome commissioned by Waikato Uni). He certainlychurns out press releases even if their quality leaves a lot to be desired.

The specific project Atkins is upset about plans to look in detail at:

“nearly 1700 publicly accessible submissions to the Hamilton City Council on the initial decision to remove flouride from Hamilton’s city water supply with a view to tracing interests and other links to private interests and public lobbying groups.”

Rather than making assumptions about the outcome, the research is aimed at establishing if there were links and their extent. The title of the project is “Public Integrity and Participatory Democracy: Hamilton
City Council’s Water Fluoridation Decision.” Surely it is in all our interests to determined how effective our participatory democracy works at the local body level.

Given that the anti-fluoridation activists often claim our democratic processes are distorted by groups like the District Health Boards I would have thought they would welcome this research. Mind you, they may prefer to leave that particular claim unchecked by objective analysis and actually be far more scared of what an objective analysis of the process reveals about their own manipulation and links to private commercial interests and lobby groups.

Isn’t that weird. A “science advisor” who interprets a scientific review “about the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water” to mean that “scientific studies showing water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective” will be excluded! And that research aimed at tracing interests and links of submitters to commercial and lobby groups will only produce a results claiming the links exist without considering any evidence.

Perhaps this is the way Mark Atkin thinks scientific investigations should happen. Perhaps this is the way the “world fluoridation experts” he idolizes, like Paul Connett and Declan Waugh, carry out their “investigations.”

But it is certainly not the way genuine scientific investigations are done.

Similar articles








0 Responses to “Anti-fluoride activists unhappy about scientific research”

  • Oh look. Chronic exposure to fluoride can cause a loss of teeth and premature aging. Good stuff. See PubMed: PMID 16892576
    U.S. National Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health
    “[Fluorine as a factor in premature aging].”

    “Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition (TOOTH LOSS) in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds.”

    So why do dentists recommend a substance that has the potential to destroy teeth to protect teeth? Seems a little irrational to me.

    Prescription strength or high fluoride toothpaste has a high concentration of sodium fluoride (NaF) and ranges from above 1,500 parts per million (ppm) to 5,000 ppm which is the maximum concentration available. But of course a dentist wouldn’t think twice about prescribing it to use every day, if not multiple times a day.

    And with the skin being the largest organ of the body, perhaps we should bathe and shower in it too?!?

    • Ima. You still haven’t worked out how to provide a citation, have you? And again you refuse to relate to the article.

  • Ken Perrot,
    No comment from you? Not even Argumentum ad Hominem?

  • Ima, I made my comment – you again refuse to discuss the actual post above.

    As for your link (yes citation like this helps) could you provide a link to a full text English version please.

    I am always suspicious of people who must hunt down obscure Polish papers to make an unmentioned argument in a comment on an article they refuse to even discuss.

    By the way, it is only polite to spell one’s name correctly.

  • Do you not even understand that fluoride is cumulative from all sources you’re exposed to and that it can destroy teeth and bone? Do you not understand this?

    • Ima, still no comment on my article – and you clearly have not read the paper you cite.

      My understanding of the role of F in apatites (our teeth and bones are bioapatites) is that it is a normal and natural component. That understanding is based on a research career which involved, in part, consideration of apatites and their reactions in soils. F confers a hardness and lower solubility to apatite so we can see why it is beneficial to teeth.

      Like all beneficial elements, though, it can have negative effect when present in excessive quantities. However the optimum concentrations used in fluoridation of water do not provide excessive amounts.

      You are promoting a distortion of the well established chemistry of fluroide in bioapatites by pretending that the negative effects occurring at excessive levels also occurs at the optimum levels.

      They don’t.

  • You might know the concentration of fluoride in tap water but you have no clue what the concentration of fluoride is in the human body without doing lab work (i.e. blood, urine, or hair analysis) on the target population. To say otherwise would be a lie. And there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency in humans, or any other mammal. To say that there is would be a lie. Fluoride’s effects depend on the TOTAL daily intake of fluoride from ALL sources. Not just from the amount maintained in tap water. About 70–90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed into the blood, where it distributes throughout the body. In infants 80–90% of absorbed fluoride is RETAINED, with the rest excreted, mostly via urine; in adults about 60% is RETAINED. About 99% of retained fluoride is stored in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich areas, where excess quantities can cause fluorosis (i.e. dental DAMAGE).

    **Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton J, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y. Fluoride in Drinking-water [PDF]. World Health Organization; 2006. ISBN 92-4-156319-2. Human health effects. p. 29–36.

    Dr. P.H. Phillips, biochemist, University of Wisconsin stated,
    “Fluoride is an accumulative poison which accumulates in the skeletal structures, including the teeth, when the body is exposed to small daily intakes of this element. …it is like lead accumulation in the bone until saturation occurs and then lead poisoning sets in.”

  • So you just conveniently for the sake of argument separate the fluoride in tap water from all other sources of fluoride despite the fact that fluoride bio accumulates in the body from ALL sources and not just from what is maintained in tap water? Why do you do that? It’s just deception. The human body couldn’t care less where the fluoride comes from. But you do? You want it in everyone’s water whether anyone needs it, or not. The body isn’t just going to ignore all the other sources of fluoride it’s exposed to and just accept the so-called “benefits” of the fluoride in tap water. The body doesn’t ignore all the other sources of fluoride. It’s cumulative from all sources it’s exposed to despite your head games and jumping through hoops to justify adding it to tap water.

    If anyone feels deprived of fluoride ions, all they have to do is brush their teeth with a fluoridated toothpaste. Or use a fluoridated mouthwash. Fluoride gets absorbed sublingually. You don’t even have to drink it in tap water to ingest it. Sodium fluoride dissolves easily in both water and saliva. Almost any form of substance may be amenable to sublingual administration if it dissolves easily in saliva.

    Adding it to everyone’s tap water is senseless. Unless you are in the business of peddling it for profit.

    • Ima, you are being dishonest again as we have discussed this thoroughly before and refuted your claims.

      Full dietary intake estimates are made for any beneficial nutrient before recommending a social health policy like this. The recommendations are based on this full dietary estimate.

  • Estimate? And estimate? Where’s the lab work? Don’t bother me with an estimate. Geez. It’s just more deception and pseudoscience.

    • Ima, I think you need to to some basic reading on the subject. You could do worse than starting with the current Royal Society review.

  • And fluoride isn’t a “nutrient” either. That is just one more of your deceptions. And fluoride isn’t required to have healthy cavity-free teeth. You can confirm that with your buddy Steve Slott. Fluoride can destroy teeth. Fluoride is one of the deadliest, multi-functional and insidious poisons known to mankind.

  • Do you think your teeth, your children’s teeth, and your dog’s teeth will all rot out of their heads without fluoride in the tap water? Do you think fluoride is somehow required for healthy teeth?

    Fluoride is not required.

  • Back to your old tricks of censoring my comments, I see. Can’t discuss anything that way. Gotta love censoring, huh?

  • ima Skeptic,

    “Adding it to everyone’s tap water is senseless. Unless you are in the business of peddling it for profit.”

    SO who makes a profit from fluoridated water?

  • Ima Skeptic

    “Fluoride is one of the deadliest, multi-functional and insidious poisons known to mankind.”

    really? Are you sure you don’t mean fluorine?

    Fluoride(s), like any substance, is toxic in large enough concentrations.. However, the amount used in fluoridation of water is in low concentrations.

    The same applied when you referred to “chronic” exposure. Chronic exposure only occurs with large doses of fluoride, not with the levels of fluoride in fluorinated water.