Note: Embargoed until 00.01 am, Friday 6th October, 2000.
Headline: 'FIASCO OR FRAUD: THE DoH SPONSORED REVIEW INTO WATER FLUORIDATION.
"Fluoridation of drinking water: a systematic review of its efficacy and safety."
The 'Review' was created to provide a comprehensive investigation into the science of water fluoridation. Extravagant claims have been made concerning this review and it has been promoted as "the final word on fluoride". Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Review has suffered from poor representation and at least one clear abuse of protocol. The latter is an INDISPUTABLE fact.
The first example is the make-up of the Review Panel. It is this group of people who were supposed to provide a balanced representation of interested or impartial bodies. The make-up of the Panel was anything but fair. Consider the following table:
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
Dr. Sheila Gibson
Dr. Peter Mansfield
Pro-fluoridation or 'Surrogate' Pro-fluoridation
Prof. MA Lennon
Prof. JJ Murray
Professor Trevor Sheldon (Chair)
Dr. Iain Chalmers
Dr. Derek Richards
Ms. Pamela Taylor
Mr. Jerry Read
Ms. Sarah Gorin
Prof. GD Smith
The 'antis' appear to have been outnumbered by 7-3. 'Surrogates' have been placed on the pro-fluoridation side because of:  their 'track-record';  involvement or;  recorded views on water fluoridation (contact the National Pure Water Association for details).
On the side of the antis there have three representatives who have been conspicuous by their lack of influence. It is these people who were supposed to represent all of and the best interests of those parties concerned about the introduction of a highly toxic chemical into public water supplies. They have been anything but influential and have failed to ensure that the Review's Protocol has been properly adhered to.
One of the most serious incidents has been the abuse of the Protocol. The following text is taken from the Review's Protocol:
Heading: "Systematic reviews"
Quote: "This study aims to provide a systematic review of all the available evidence in order to assess the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation."and ...
"Systematic reviews differ from other types of review in that they adhere to a strict scientific design in order to make them more comprehensive, to minimise the chance of bias, and so ensure their reliability. Rather than reflecting the views of the authors or being based on only a (possibly biased) selection of the published literature, they contain a comprehensive summary of the available evidence." (EMPHASIS ADDED)
Heading: "2. Objective of this review"
"Many studies and reviews are available on fluoridation, but no systematic review has been undertaken. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the evidence on the positive and negative effects of population wide drinking water fluoridation strategies to prevent caries. To achieve this aim four objectives have been identified:
2. If fluoridation is shown to have beneficial effects, what is the effect over and above that offered by the use of alternative interventions and strategies (i.e. fluoridated toothpaste, educational programmes, and increased self awareness of health issues?)." and ...
"4. Assessment of the negative health effects of fluoridation."
FACT: Extensive data sent by Chris Holdcroft (of fluoride.org.uk) was retained by the Review Body (nb. Review Body - the research team) until the beginning of this year. The Review Body then stated that they had insufficient time to consider the evidence provided and requested a breakdown / simplification.
Six socially and geographically controlled studies containing only data (no opinions were offered) were submitted to the Review Body for further analysis. Factors considered by the author were:
THIS WAS 'AVAILABLE' EVIDENCE WHICH THE REVIEW BODY REFUSED TO CONSIDER IN THEIR FINAL ANALYSIS.
How can the Review Body justify refusal of data which clearly identifies other factors associated with the dental health of children?
Is it because the data provided undermined the latent desire to present fluoridation as an alleged safe and effective measure?
The Review Body has indisputably BETRAYED the essence of the Protocol and has deliberately misrepresented the truth about studies into *decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft).
See Press Release 001 on our website for flaws in dmft studies
The Review into fluoridation was supposed to be independent, fair and the "final word".
The Review was NOT independent due to the involvement of the NHS Executive, it was not fair because of deliberate and potentially fraudulent manipulation and it is not the "final word" due to the omission of large quantities of valuable evidence.
THE YORK REVIEW BODY HAS PRODUCED A DOCUMENT WHICH QUESTIONS THE INTEGRITY OF THE NHS EXECUTIVE AND ITS INABILITY TO PRODUCE AN IMPARTIAL REPORT. THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE FINAL REPORT IS THAT IT WILL BE USED BY PRO-FLUORIDATIONISTS AS A JUSTIFICATION TO PROMOTE FURTHER FLUORIDATION SCHEMES. THIS IS OVERWHELMINGLY SCANDALOUS AND GROSSLY MISREPRESENTS THE TRUTH ABOUT A PRACTICE WITH NO CREDIBLE CREDENTIALS.
FOR FURTHER REVELATIONS ABOUT THE REVIEW'S LACK OF CREDIBILITY, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING WEB-SITE TO READ THREE CRITIQUES: Fluoride Alert
END OF STATEMENT.