Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Fraud is now the biggest enemy of Science.



Despite fifty years of water fluoridation the authorities in New Zealand (NZ) and the Republic of Ireland (RoI) have never actually measured the fluoride intake in diet or beverages by using tap water in the preperation of foods.

In NZ, the 1987/88 Dietary intake assessment suggested that the dietary fluoride intake for adults living in Dunedin NZ (Fluoridated drinking water) was 0.7 mg per day. Subsequently the 1990/91 NZ dietary intake study suggested that the mean adult intake was 3.0 mg per day. In the only RoI study ever conducted by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and published in 2011, the mean intake for an Irish Adult was reported to be just 1.88 to 2.09 mg per day.

In each of these latter studies only non fluoridated deionized water was used in the preperation of foods. In contrast a strickly controlled dietary study conducted in 1970 in Illinois USA, where drinking water fluoride levels were comparable to NZ and the RoI; ranging from 0.95- 1.05 mg/L, the authors determined that the daily fluoride intake from foods and beverages was 4.36 mg per day.

In the latter study, by Spencer et al (1970- J Nutrition 1970; 100: 1415-1424) the authors actually measured the fluoride balances in subjects, as well as the fluoride content in foods and beverages. In other words they measured the excretion of fluoride in bodily fluids and solids. The authors reported that the higher fluoride intakes were due to use of fluoridated water in the preperation of foods. Another US study by Osis et al (J. Nutr. 104:1313–1318) also demonstrated that using fluoridated water to prepare foods doubled the fluoride intake of individuals.

Now, the thing is, that in 1970s, per capita tea consumption in NZ and Ireland was almost 20 times (2000 per cent) higher than the USA. However, in these strickly controlled US studies, tea was not part of their daily diet so the contribution of tea to fluoride intake was not accounted for. It is important to be aware that since water fluoridation began NO study has ever been conducted in NZ or the RoI to measure fluoride retentiion or excretion levels in adults. It is also important to be aware that the European Food Safety Authority (2013) determined that the Adequate Intake (AI) of fluoride from all sources for a healthy adult female and male aged 18 years and over is 2.9 mg/day and 3.4 mg/day respectively.

Evidence would therefore strongly suggest that daily fluoride intakes for adults in both NZ and Ireland far exceed the recommended intakes, which means they are suffering from chronic fluoride intoxication.

The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected. For fluoride intoxication the consequences can be long term and wide ranging.  Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research. According to the Swedish defination, scientific misconduct is the "Intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."

Notably, the NZ and Irish Authorities have managed to manipulate results by ONLY using non fluoridated water in the preperation of foods and beverages and presenting these incorrect results as accurate estimations of dietary fluoride intake. They are basically deliberately misinforming consumers to protect State policies regardless of the long term health effects on the population.



1 comment:

  1. Fluoridationists and media who mis-represent scientific and historical fact are profiled this 2016 social science report on the Israeli debate that concludes, health officials and politicians should "adhere to scientific information to justify arguments regarding policy-making, and avoid disparaging comments that resort to unscientific arguments in order to undermine opposing opinions. Last is the question of whether in issues of uncertainty it is appropriate to determine broad-based policies intended to mandate public health measures – or how such decisions should be made, particularly in health issues under scientific debate."

    Anat Gesser-Edelsburg and Yaffa Shir-Raz. Communicating risk for issues that involve 'uncertainty bias': what can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us? Journal of Risk Research · August 2016.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305985332

    ReplyDelete