|
|
About Us Contact Us Useful Links Translation Site Map |
|
Infodocs Opinion Polls Pictures Propaganda Unethical Con. |
|
News Centre Press Release |
|
Political Register |
|
Dental Data Forums/Reviews Papers Statements |
|
Aus F News Copy List |
|
HREX |
|
BDA should practice what it preaches Sir, With reference to Dr Briffa’s article on fluoridation and the response from Ian Wylie, the Chief executive of the British Dental Association (Oct. 6th & 13th, 2002). Mr Wylie talks of “…fluoridation based on sound science.” But he does not appear to understand the meaning of the word “sound”. As an 11-year researcher of fluorides and water fluoridation with an extensive knowledge of the subject, I am alarmed at the seemingly politically motivated and polarised stance of pro-fluoridation organisations such as the BDA. The facts on the alleged efficacy of fluoridation are simple – and please listen to this Mr Wylie - there is no “sound” science to show that fluoridation is effective. Therefore, Dr Briffa was perfectly justified in his remarks. If Mr Wylie wishes to debate these facts, then I would like to make him aware that I was ‘intimately’ involved with the NHS/CRD Review of water fluoridation (aka: ’the York Review’). In my capacity as a contributor and regular correspondent to this Review, I was further concerned at the narrow protocol which omitted much important evidence, the very poor quality of evidence that was submitted which purported to show the efficacy of fluoridation, and the attitude of the Review researchers who blatantly ignored other factors which contribute to improved dental health. I have also stated since the inception of the York Review that it was merely a ploy to involve a minority of ineffective anti-fluoridationists who did not sufficiently represent the interests of their colleagues. In addition to this, the following MRC Report on fluoridation came from a committee stacked with pro-fluoridationists, thus making the claims of this organisation open to charges of bias and self-interest. In a nutshell, the York Review failed to correct at least one serious error in its final report and ignored important researcher directly related to the effects of fluoridation. It also restricted the protocol of the Review to virtually ‘strangle’ any chance of fluoride being shown to be harmful. If this were not enough, the MRC have decided to reinterpret what the York Review actually said about the efficacy of fluoridation and use ‘spin’ rather than fact.. This is not science and it is not commendable. In closing, I would strongly suggest the reader visits www.fluoride.org.uk for revelations on both the York Review and the MRC Report on fluoridation. Yours sincerely, C Holdcroft |
||||||||||||||||||
| TRANSLATION | EDUCATION | NEWS | POLITICAL | SCIENCE | AFN | HREX | ABOUT [fluoride.org.uk] | CONTACT | LINKS | SITE MAP |