Rebuttal: Minister’s Science Advisory Committee (NZ)


ESRAs per usual, the pro-fluoridation mafia is hitting back. We write this letter to arm you with some counter-arguments to their unscientific, simplistic mantras. Listed below are the main garbage claims you will hear, over and over again:

What is in the water? – June 12, 2013
The Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee
New Zealand

Claim: “The science of fluoride in water is effectively settled. It has been one of the most thoroughly worked questions in public health science over some decades.”

Response: On the contrary. When the University of York examined the evidence on fluoridation, the authors were surprised at its poor quality. According to the research team, “Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.” Three years later, the authors reiterated, “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide… As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation.”

Read the full article…


5 thoughts on “Rebuttal: Minister’s Science Advisory Committee (NZ)

  1. Zinger, your link has been passed on, along with Admin’s.
    Personally, I think it would be a shame to start adding anything to Christchurches water. It may be safe to do so, or it may not be safe. If tooth decay is the issue, then perhaps too much processed sugar is the problem and no amount of water flouridation will solve that. If one brushes one’s teeth regularly then one gets more than enough flouride. Ever heard of flourosis? Flouride overdose…..

  2. Thanks Kevin. Had a discussion with some of my workmates today on the flouride subject. Many want to know more, so I’ll pass on these links. Thanks very much.

  3. FLUORIDE:- Some sites I found very useful –

    “Fluoride: An Invisible Killer”

    Floyd Maxwell BASc, Author of the International Anti-Fluoridation Database

    “We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic.”

    “The federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead is 15 parts per billion (ppb), 5 ppb for arsenic and 4000 ppb for fluoride.”

    Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy, National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280, before The Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water, United States Senate, June 29, 2000

    EPA scientists take action against EPA for failing to protect public health — Important scientific and technical considerations were ignored when the Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL) for fluoride was set (1986 Amicus Brief).

    The need for a Code of Ethics at the EPA became critical. Without an enforceable code of ethics with sanctions, the distortion of truth caused by the pressures of politics would continue.

    Environmental Protection Agency Union fights back

    “Just think it, Fluoride The Invisible Killer” Floyd Maxwell, Chemical engineer.
    This article can be found at:
    And in plain ASCII text (Microsoft Word-compatible) here:

    150+ Fluoride facts, horror stories and cover-ups
    Floyd Maxwell,
    BASc Principal,

Comments are closed.

Next Post

U.S. 'planned to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad'

Mon Jun 17 , 2013
Leaked emails from defense contractor refers to chemical weapons saying ‘the idea is approved by Washington’ Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that use of chemical warfare was ‘totally unacceptable’ Article

You May Like