|
Copy List
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Report on
Dental Decay
Alarm
bells, panic stations, scientific turbulence
"TEETH
ARE DECAYING IN AUSTRALIA"
Fluoridation not
stopping Tooth Decay! What will we do and what do we say?
Nothing is new in
fluoridation.
Shades of U.S. Directors
of Health Service, meeting Washington 1951.
Subject: Fluoridation.
Minutes of Meeting
The main speaker, Dr.
Bull, a dentist, dispensing official Government policy on fluoridation
stated a warning:
"When they take
us at our own word they make awful liars out of us."
"Now in regard to
toxicity - I notice Dr. Bain used the term 'adding sodium fluoride'. We
never do that. That is rat poison. You add fluorides."
(U.S. Congress
Library)
Before any careful
reading, it is important to remember Government's qualified official
statements to the people of Australia on the effectiveness of fluoridation.
Fluoridation is absolute,
scientifically proven, the end of dental decay and dentists will be history.
The end of dental suffering in children and indeed adults, no more dental
decay.
The Hamer Report, by his
three especially selected "scientists" investigating fluoridation, stated,
page 202, 18.3:
"Public Attitude
Much of the
information available to the public is sensational, ill-informed,
incomplete and misleading."
Seems Hamer's Committee
were prophets of the fluoridation future or they just lost the plot!
Dental Health Survey
Now comes a Report by the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIH&W), The Child Dental
Health Survey, Australia 1999, by J.M. Armfield, K.F. Roberts-Thomson,
A.J. Spencer (University of Adelaide Dental School).
Fluoridation has failed,
and admitted by the Government's Agency, The Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare (AIH&W) published in their 53 page document dated 2003.
The Institute admit
"they did not examine the reason why children's teeth were deteriorating."
From a taxpayer's concern
about children's teeth, one would think the REASON for dental decay
increasing is of paramount importance and indeed should have been the basis
of such research.
The outcome of a true and
proper research would in all probability highlight in blinding terms past
erroneous claims made about fluoridation's effectiveness.
When
they take us at our own words they make awful lies out of us."
Dentist
Bull, at U.S. Directors of Health Services meeting.
A great pity the AIH&W
did not document in their Report the large increase in Dentists since
fluoridation commenced in Australia, together with dental nurses, dental
hygienists, dental therapists, and the introduction of School Dental Clinics
in which children get regular service.
Also the new larger
Dental Hospitals in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth should have been noted, as
they seem to have been a forecast "a necessity".
Notwithstanding the
above, the Dental Scientists of the AIH&W doing their "exhaustive" study
should have declared clearly and without equivocation the huge tonnage, and
it is huge, increase in use of toothpaste since fluoridation commenced in
Australia, together with millions of tooth brushes. (Production data
1957-1976 - "Fluoridation Poison on Tap"; p. 168).
Surely it is obvious to
people in responsible Government Health research employment to understand
the large, uncontrollable VARIABLES associated with children and adults
drinking fluoridated water. In medical terms it is called the "DOSE" which
constitutes an extraordinary variable between EVERY person.
Scientific sampling
for Australian Results: (page 1)
"The data for the
Child Dental Health Survey are derived from the routine examinations of
children enrolled in the school dental service. At the time of
examination, children are sampled at random by selecting those born on
specific days of the month. Victoria and Tasmania adopt other systematic
sampling procedures based on selecting every nth case. In New South Wales
full enumeration of all available consenting children is carried out.
Different sampling
ratios, and consequently different days of birth, are used across the
States and Territories according to the scheme presented in Table 1.
National data for the Child Dental Health Survey therefore constitute a
stratified random sample of children from the school dental services.
Children not enrolled with the school dental service or not consenting to
participate in the SOKS program are not represented in the sample.
Data only on
selection of children, but nothing about the scientific requirement for
estimation of examiner error or bias, and not one "blind study".
Data collected for
the current study on immediate treatment needs do not include children
from Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital
Territory.
It is necessary to
be cautious in drawing inferences from age-related trends, particularly
among those aged over 12 years. In most States and Territories, access to
school dental services for older children tends to be restricted in
comparison with access for younger children. Often the older children must
meet special eligibility criteria, with the consequences that they may be
less representative of their respective age groups within the Australian
population than is the case for younger children. Also, in New South Wales
and Victoria no children aged older than 14 years are included in the
analysis, so current estimates for 15 year-old children do not take those
States into account. (page 2)
Save our Kids' Smiles
Between 1995 and
1996, at the time the SOKS (Save our Kids' Smiles) program was introduced,
there was an apparent substantial improvement in the oral health of
children in NSW. There was, for example, a 44% reduction in 5-6-year-old,
mean decay, a 57% reduction in 12-year-old, mean decay, and a 12% increase
in the percentage of 5-6-year-old children free of caries experience
(dmft+0) in their deciduous dentition." (page 5)
That was a good year for
fluoridation propaganda!
"In 1999 NSW Health
commenced a wide-ranging review of SOKS, with one aspect being a quality
assurance project aimed at assessing the reliability and validity of data
collected under SOKS assessment conditions. The technical report (NSW
Health Department 2001) found that, while there were no statistically
significant differences in the reporting of missing and filled teeth
between a field SOKS-style assessment and a clinical examination) there
was a persistent and statistically significant under-reporting of the
number of decayed teeth under field compared to clinic conditions. In
deciduous teeth, the mean decay score for the SOKS assessment was 36%
lower than that collected in the clinic, while the mean decay score for
permanent teeth was 41 % lower. Such an underestimation of decay also
resulted in a significant underestimation in the dmft and DMFT indices.
Although it is
believed that these adjusted figures may represent a more accurate
estimation of caries experience in NSW and therefore Australia, for the
purpose of consistency with previous reports the data obtained via the
SOKS assessments from NSW are retained for calculations in the body of
this report." (Emphasis added) (page 5)
"... a
persistant and statistically significant under-reporting of the number of
decayed teeth ..."
The
Child Dental Health Survey, Australia, 1999
Here we begin to once
again move into the usual fluoridation dental science relating to children's
teeth. The ifs and buts, the exact versus the maybe, and the
"underestimation" of decay resulting in a significant underestimation in
dmft and DMFT indices.
Senior dental scientists
seem to accept their own unacceptable dental data but state they are
"retaining the underestimating data in the body of their Report."
Worthy of investigation
are the graphs (P. 47, Fig. 33), showing "the mean decayed and filled
permanent teeth (DMFT) for 12-year-old children by State and Territory from
1990-1999."
These graphs show the
12-year-old data in 3-year graph changes. The large changes within 3-year
periods need real scientific explanation.
It is debatable that
children’s teeth (community) can alter so statistically within a 3-year
period and then abruptly change direction for another 3 years.
In other reasoning it
appears fluoridation promoters do not have a map to follow their odd journey
with reality.
In NSW between 1995-1997
(3 years) children's teeth improved by almost 50%. The data on the ACT which
is the prize city for fluoridation, shows real dental turbulence, indeed an
unbelievable variation showing a real dental Yo-Yo graph - 1992-1993 an
improvement from about 1.25 DMFT down to about 0.85 DMFT, a change in 2
years bottoming at about 0.55 in 1996.
At that point there was a
sharp decline in the ACT 12-yearolds dental health. In one year the
teeth decreased from 0.55 DMFT back up to 0.8, then in one more year ACT
children's teeth improved again by about 10% but still the scientific dental
Yo-Yo kept moving and the final data shows ACT children's teeth decreasing
in quality.
The A.C.T, fluoridated
since 1964 (39 years), and now the children's teeth showing a decline in
quality.
Tasmania is also showing
a Yo-Yo type graph on the quality of their children's teeth (Tasmania
fluoridated 1956 - 47 years of fluoridation).
Tasmanian children's
teeth changed from about 1.0 DMFT in 1997 to 1.40 in 1999, a decline in
quality by about 50% in 2 years!
The Western Australia
graph shows their 12-year-old children's teeth on an uninterrupted trend of
improvement, finishing at 1997 with DMFT rate of 0.75.
This data is interesting
considering the W.A. press, 28th April, 2002 quoting Australian Academy of
Pediatric Dentistry President, Peter Gregory agreeing the most common
problem for children was early childhood caries.
The Sunday Times
article, "Serious tooth decay at five", stating pre-schoolers in WA
were having to undergo major dental work including emergency extractions
because their teeth had decayed beyond repair.
"Serious tooth decay at five" (with artificially fluoridated water).
Sunday
Times, W.A. 28 April 2002
"New research shows
about 40% of five-year-olds in WA have dental decay and 12% were suffering
from severe tooth decay."
Fluoridation is doing
nothing for young children in fluoridated WA.
The Report 2003 by the
Institute of Health and Welfare was given great publicity in every daily
paper throughout Australia, and similarly on all Radio and TV, but, no
reaction from politicians about the failure of fluoridation.
The Melbourne Age
published their article on the Report.
"Dental as anything,
but we're slipping".
The author of the
article, Liz Minchen, reported statements from Jason Armfield, co-author,
who said the latest data was worrying. Among 5-year-olds there was (is) a 22
per cent "increase in caries between 1996 and 1999".
"Victorian average
of 1.09 decayed missing or filled teeth among 12-year-olds was also among
the worst in the country only behind Queensland (1.30 teeth) and Tasmania
(1.15)."
Victoria fluoridated
1977, Queensland only about 5% fluoridated, but Tasmania the longest
fluoridated State (47 years).
The strangest statement
was that:
"Australia has the
second-lowest average number of decayed permanent teeth among 12-year-olds
in the world, after the Netherlands."
The Netherlands, by Law,
stopped fluoridation in 1973, so the statement relative to The Netherlands
shows fluoridation is a scientific dental fraud.
Interestingly, the Child
Dental Health Survey did not examine or research, why children’s teeth were
deteriorating.
It was suggested or
claimed the reason for tooth decay was/is "increasing popularity of bottled
water".
These dental gurus seem
to consider it better to give children soft drinks in their lunch rather
than a bottle of clean unfluoridated water.
A question should be
posed as to why people have to turned to fluoride-free bottled water, not
only in Australia but worldwide in fluoridated communities.
Also why children's teeth
are so good in non-fluoridated communities in Australia and in particular
all Europe.
Following all the exposed
fluoridation misinformation about its safety and effectiveness, the absolute
silence from dentists and politicians is deafening.
That is only part of the
huge story of embarrassment in the Fluoride Lobby.
Today's news April 2003
in the media throughout Australia announces the plight of people waiting 4
years for dental service.
The Government cannot
keep up to the demands made on public dental care, while dental authorities
keep claiming that fluoridation stops tooth decay in adults, in fact
"throughout life".
Fluoridation is a futile
scientific, medical exercise; deceit from the beginning, transforming
science and pharmacology into commercialism, all in exchange for dollars,
betraying the trusting people of the world, and prostituting the principles
of good government, true science, good morals and respect for their fellow
man by Parliamentary constitutional representatives of the people.
Copy List
|
