The following are documented examples of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and District Health Boards (DHBs) falsely citing research and reports as supporting their position, when they do not support it and may even refute it. The New Zealand taxpayer, who funds the MOH and DHBs, deserves to be supplied with accurate, scientific information in an honest way, not to be deceived to justify a position adopted by these organisations for political reasons.

The MOH cites the following documents as demonstrating the safety of fluoridation:

1. 1994 New Zealand Public Health Commission (PHC) report. This report only examined hip fracture, cancer and dental fluorosis. It principally relied on other reports and conducted no systematic review of primarily research. It scanned the main medical databases for studies, while acknowledging that these were unlikely to carry such research.

2. 2000 Review by the University of York. This review did not find fluoridation to be safe, a fact confirmed by Dr. Trevor Sheldon, the Chairman of the Review Board, in 2001 and twice more since. The review's terms of reference prevented it from examining clinical evidence of adverse health effects, so it was impossible for this review to prove harm. Dr. Sheldon’s official statement, as put before the House of Lords in the UK, states unequivocally that pro-fluoridation bodies such as the UK government and the British Medical and Dental Associations, have deliberately lied about the report’s findings.

3. 2000 ESR Review. Although its terms of reference were to examine all studies since 1994, it failed to do this and examined only epidemiological studies, not clinical studies, and looked only at dental fluorosis, cancer and hip fracture. The review was compiled by searching only the same medical databases identified by the PHC in 1994 as being unlikely to list the required studies. Only 14 studies were examined and a number of ground-breaking studies were overlooked.

In claiming that fluoridation helps adults as well as children, the MOH cites the following (OIA 13 December 2000):

1. Burt, Ismail and Eckland (1986). "Root caries in an optimally fluoridated and a high-fluoride community." Journal of Dental Research, Vol 65, 1154-1158. This research compared communities with 0.7 ppm fluoride levels in water with communities with dangerously high fluoride levels in water (3.5 ppm); it did not look at low fluoride communities. As we know from Arends’ study in 1989, and others since, 1.5 - 2ppm or higher is enough for topical benefit (as opposed to a systemic benefit, from swallowing fluoride). So this study makes the same error as the original proponents 50 years earlier. It is scientifically invalid to simply extrapolate a straight line back to low fluoride levels with this knowledge; the study proves nothing.

2. Hunt, Eldridge and Beck (1989). Journal of Public Health Dentistry. The report states, "Information on other sources of fluoride, such as fluoride toothpastes and mouthrinses, was not collected. Thus it is possible that the differences in caries incidence were due to other sources of fluoride." This study further acknowledged that the number of subjects was too small and the results were not statistically significant, except one. That result was that adults received no benefit from 30 years of continuous fluoridation. Specifically, subjects from fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas had the same levels of dental decay as at the beginning of the study; in some cases, this was after 40 years of high fluoride exposure. With more than 30 years of exposure, it concluded that there was on average ½ a cavity less in the fluoridated communities. It does not explain any mechanism by which such a strange phenomenon could occur. Further, in 1989, it was still believed that fluoride’s effect was systemic. It is now known that it works topically, by remineralising enamel as it begins to form caries lesions, reversing the condition and preventing development of permanent decay. The effectiveness of this process is dependent upon the concentration of fluoride at the tooth surface at the time of decay onset. How 30 years of systemic intake could affect this has not been demonstrated. It was only during 1989 that it was shown that 1ppm was insufficient to produce this effect. The study itself states that its result "indicates that the topical effect of currently consumed fluoridated water was not sufficient by itself to significantly reduce caries." The biggest question is: Why would anyone take a known poison so that after 30 or 40 years they may have a 50/50 chance of saving one filling?

3. W.M. Thompson (1997) publication for the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability entitled "Preventive Dental Strategies for Older Populations" (OIA 27 March 2003). In this document, Thompson simply quotes the first study: Burt, Ismail and Eckland (1986).

In support of its claim that fluoridation does not cause cancer, the MOH cites Kinlen and Doll, 1977 (OIA 13 Dec 2000). Kinlen admitted under oath in court in 1978 that the study was based on false data and that the correct data showed an increase in cancer.

In support of its claim that silicofluorides dissociate completely into free fluoride ions, the Auckland DHB, which undoubtedly relies on the MoH for its information, cites Crosby (1969), Journal of Applied Chemistry. In fact, this study does not draw the claimed conclusion, and one of the two analytical methods used in the study showed only 87% dissociation; the other method showed 95% dissociation. Furthermore, the study was conducted on water solutions (distilled and tap water), but did not simulate the acidic conditions of the stomach. These would be expected to push the dissociation equilibrium of a weak electrolyte, such as silicofluoride, towards the undissociated form. It also quotes Stumm and Morgan (1996), and Holden (1970), without citing page numbers. Only one of these authors cites scientific research, and no reference to this question has been found in that work.

The MOH claims that about 40 countries fluoridate their water, but when asked for details they admitted having no information about these countries. They rely on the website http://www.crha-health.ab.ca/pophlth/hp/fluoride/hpcountr.htm (Auckland DHB OIA response, 6 August 2002). That website does not identify what percentage of the populations are supplied with fluoridated water. It lists Switzerland as a "fluoridated country". In fact, only the town of Basel ever fluoridated its water supply, on an experimental basis. Basel discontinued fluoridation in 2003, citing no evidence of benefit after 41 years. The website also lists Israel as a fluoridated country. In fact, Israel only passed a law enabling fluoridation in 2002, and the Supreme Court of Israel subsequently found this law to be unconstitutional in 2003.