Actually Emily McAuliffe has written a thoughtful critique of the problems surrounding enforced public health measures. Those fervent supporters of fluoridation who rushed in to attack her do no service to science, nor to informed debate.
Both science and public health progress through informed debate and intelligent, critical discussion - even of 'sacred cows' like water fluoridation.
One of the best scientific reviews of fluoridation was published in the British Medical Journal in 2007. The authors, leading experts in public health, stated in their introduction:
"We are concerned that the polarised
debates and the way that evidence is harnessed,
and uncertainties glossed over, make it hard for the
public and professionals to participate in consultations
on an informed basis. Here, we highlight problems
that should be confronted in such consultations and
emphasise the considerable uncertainties in the
evidence."
Reference:
Cheng, Chalmers & Sheldon (2007)
BMJ, 6th October 2007
Vol 335, pp 699-702
[The authors proceeded to show that there are great weaknesses in the evidence about both safety and effectivenss of water fluoridation. Several posters on this forum would have you believe that there is no argument, and that McAuliffe is wrong in suggesting there is doubt. She is actually on more firm ground than they realize]

>>Both science and public health progress through informed debate and intelligent, critical discussion<<

A fair point and well made. But does this sort of tripe really represent informed debate and intelligent discussion?

>>Then there is another friend who has gastric attacks, then another whose kidneys have become impaired. I can name 100's of people I know of who suffer.<<

I don't know where you come from Dr. Knowalittle. I hail from the Hunter valley, and in the Hunter we believe that evidence is NOT the plural of anecdote. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes and while they make for interesting stories they don't amount to scientific evidence.

>>[Deleted for abuse.]<<

Really dangermouse? You couldn't do any better than [Deleted for abuse]? Shooting fish in a barrel would provide better sport. Try again, next time with feeling.

>>all the symptoms I had of classic fluoride poisoning which were not diagnosed as such - disappeared.<<

Hmm... symptoms that are 'not diagnosed as such' (i.e. not diagnosed by a doctor) but are symptoms of 'classic flouride poisoning' (i.e. self-diagnosed off some dodgy internet site). As soon as the patient makes the CONSCIOUS EFFORT to
>>avoid fluoridated water and all products containing it<<
the symptoms disappear EVEN IF the patient is still regularly consuming flouride, which - let's face it - is essentially impossible to eliminate from your diet. Even reverse osmosis water contains trace elements...

Sounds familiar. I would bet my last dollar that the symptoms attested to - along with most of the other sob stories we've heard - amount to nothing more than a nocebo effect.

TBC

continued

We've all heard of the placebo effect - if you really believe that the pills you're taking will do you good then they generally do you good even if they contain an inert chemical like sugar - the brain does the rest of the work for you. It works in reverse too - if someone really believes that the water they are drinking is poisonous it might cause them harm even though it is an inert chemical - the brain does the rest of the work for them. This is the nocebo effect.

When testing the efficacy of drugs they use double-blind controlled trials to ensure an accurate comparison. The patients don't know if they get real thing or a placebo and the drug is only approved if it is more effective than the placebo alone.

We should test for nocebo effects in the same way - a double-blind controlled study where nobody knows if they're drinking nice fresh tap juice or flouride-free water. If the flouridated water produces more 'poisoning' than the tap water alone then there is a cause for concern. The fear - misplaced or not - surrounding floridated water can only serve to confound results in this type of study, and the best way to avoid that fear is through double-blind testing.

Which no flouride-phobic will ever submit to for fear of receiving the tap water instead of the non-flouridated water.

And thus we are left up the proverbial creek without a paddle: without test subjects you can't run tests, without tests you have no data, and without data you can't form sound conclusions or even sound premises and the argument - instead of being based on reason - becomes unbased on emotion and rhetoric and I get to enjoy another public hanging.

Cheers,

Tony

@Tony. Ok you line up the medical personnel to do a double blind study and we will find you the people, "victims" of potential fluoride poisoning to be tested. You will find there is no such study available to any of us. Don't you think we have tried?

My information is only anecdotal because I am speaking about other persons and the "privacy act" does not allow me to name them. Do you know there are some regular doctors out there who have integrity and guts and have signed affidavits to the effect that we should not be mass medicated with a substance which is cumulative and will breakdown our bodies systemically. Some sooner than others, particularly babies and children,the frail & elderly. Tony are you a medico or just another person who wants to belittle people who are genuinely becoming ill and their doctors are unable to diagnose the problem? You are obviously one of the lucky people who do not suffer chemical toxicity problems; maybe down the track you will change your mind. Our own amazing late great Edward (Weary) Dunlop opposed fluoridation suggesting in fit people it can take up to 20 years to show effects. Is it the asbestos; thalidomide; smoking; of tomorrow?

Is there a chance of an alternative water source for you, chemifree...?

Old Bob would be conscious and considerate of your situation (see p.8) and might offer to dowse a natural source of water on your property.

I have lived in a rural area and have been drinking unfluoridated rainwater from tanks for over thirty years. Before that, I lived in other countries without fluoridated water. I am over sixty and still have my own teeth with just a few fillings. My daughter who grew up with rainwater from tanks also has all her own teeth and has had only one filling so far. She is over thirty.

What needs to be taught is dental hygiene in combination with a low sugar diet. Simple and no need for mass medication.