11th October, 2000
Note: For immediate release.
Headline: 'Scientific' Review of Water Fluoridation: Opinion of moderate to severe fluorosis based upon observations of 14-year-old schoolchildren!
The recent Department of Health / NHS executive sponsored Review of Water Fluoridation admitted that 48% of the population would suffer from fluorosis with 12.5% having fluorosis of "aesthetic concern".
It would appear that the term 'moderate' or 'severe fluorosis' is not politically acceptable as it would raise serious questions about the sanity of a Government who appear determined to permanently disfigure half the population in an attempt to help certain industries dispose of their toxic waste via UK water supplies.
Desperate to play down this potential tragedy, and in a disgraceful display of spin-doctoring, the parties involved in the recently completed review have apparently decided to reclassify the severity of a condition normally measured by one of several recognised indices.
Out goes the terms 'moderate' or 'severe' and in comes the 14-year-old children of Manchester!
In a 1996 study used to reclassify fluorosis, children from Manchester aged 14 were shown pictures of fluorosis classified using the 'T & F index' and asked to rate the appearance of each as either very poor, poor, acceptable, good or very good.
This admission has come from the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at York University. It was the CRD conducted the Review into water fluoridation. An employee of the CRD replied to the following letter:
E-Mail from Chris Holdcroft (fluoride.org.uk)11th October 2000 Dear Paul Wilson
"... Secondly, the term "of aesthetic concern" appears to have been used in place of the wording "moderate to severe fluorosis". Can you confirm that this interpretation is correct. ...Reply:
11th October 2000
"As to an explanation for the use of the term "of aesthetic concern", may I refer you to chapter 7 of the full report - which states:
As there may be some debate about the significance of a fluorosis score at the lowest level of each index being used to define a person as 'fluorosed', a second method of determining the percent 'fluorosed' was selected. This method describes the number of children having dental fluorosis that may cause 'aesthetic concern'. The level at which fluorosis was judged to cause aesthetic concern was taken from a study by Hawley (1996). Children from Manchester aged 14 were shown pictures of fluorosis classified using the T & F index and asked to rate the appearance of each as either very poor, poor, acceptable, good or very good. The cut-off point for this analysis was taken as the level of fluorosis above which the children classified the photographs as "very poor" or "poor". This corresponded to a T & F score of three or more (Hawley, 1996). This was translated as being equivalent to Dean's score of "mild" or worse and a TSIF score of two or more. This additional analysis was restricted to these three indices, as the definition was not transferable to the other fluorosis indices."
With best wishes, Paul.
The reclassification of fluorosis has one again exposed the 'creative' language used by the fluoride lobby to deceive the public. The Government MUST accept that to introduce fluoridation on the basis of the flawed, flimsy evidence which underpins it's safety and efficacy, is not acceptable to the 48% of the population who will be inflicted with fluorosis. Even the 12.5% (of children) who will suffer the worst symptoms will be liable to suffer psychological trauma when their permanent teeth begin to appear.
The world we live in today presents many pitfalls for vulnerable children. They are exposed to different types of abuse, whether it be mental or physical, and corrupt influences. Parents have to be vigilant.
Now the Blair-led Government is forcing upon children another form of abuse - compulsory medication via water fluoridation.
END OF STATEMENT.