Dear All,

Several times I have referred readers to a very frustrating meeting I had in Melbourne, Australia, in 2004, with Dr. Robert Hall, the Chief Health Officer for the state of Victoria. Talking to Dr. Hall is like having a conversation with a compact disc. No matter what one says he repeats the mantra that as far he and his staff are concerned, “Fluoridation is safe and effective” and that’s that. No amount of referring to the scientific literature will make him blink let alone change his mind. I have never met a clearer example of someone “working backwards” from a set agenda.

Some of you, who have read my rants about this, may have felt I was exaggerating. Well here is a chance to see that I wasn’t.  Here is your chance to read, or even hear, Dr. Hall in action. He was recently involved in an ABC radio interview - come debate - with a citizen, Shane Elson, from the Gippsland Safe Water Alliance. Gippsland is one of the rural communities in Victoria on which Hall is trying to force fluoridation (whether citizens want it or not).

For those who have the software you can listen to this radio program in full at > and below I have typed out the section of this program where Shane Elson brings up the NRC (2006) report and the frustrating efforts of the commentator to get Dr. Hall to address this report’s findings.

It becomes pretty clear that Dr. Hall has not read this review - because he says that his department relies on “reviews“  - and finally dismisses this 450 page report as an “argument”!

Several times he says that he prefers the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) reviews, but these are extremely dated being issued in 1991 and 1999.  Another NHMRC review was cancelled in 2002, supposedly because of lack of funding, but possibly because they were coming up with the wrong answers. Moreover, it is highly hypocritical for Hall to say he relies on this agency, because for 15 years Australian health authorities have failed miserably to follow up on two key recommendations of the NHMRC’s 1991 report. This called upon authorities to track the levels of fluoride in the bones of the Australian people so that meaningful epidemiological studies could be done and also for the issue of individual hypersensitivity be resolved one way or the other with government-funded scientific studies.

He also prefers to WHO reviews, but he fails to acknowledge that his department does not follow the basic and very sensible recommendation of the WHO, which is NOT to fluoridate until local authorities assess what the current exposure to fluoride is in the community where fluoridation is proposed. Because Australian state health departments do not require this common sense measure, they are destined to grossly over-expose children to fluoride (i.e. way beyond the levels supposedly needed to fight tooth decay and well over the levels that cause dental fluorosis in a sizeable fraction of the population).

Hall also refers to the CDC reviews, which again is highly ironic since the CDC in its infamous statement that circled the globe (”fluoridation is one of the top 10 public health achievements of the twentieth century”) relied on the very same National Research Council’s review of 1993!

Dr. Robert Hall’s ignorance and arrogance on this matter should be acutely embarrassing for any Victorian who believes that state health departments are there to protect the health of the people.  But not many officials or journalists realize this man’s nefarious activities. Particularly oblivious to this state of affairs is the Melbourne Age. However, unlike their cricketers, Australian journalists seem to be pretty thin skinned when it comes to comments from “outsiders” even when the comments pertain to strictly scientific matters. Thus, may I recommend that those outraged by Dr. Hall’s inability to defend a practice he is prepared to force on thousands of citizens, write a letter on Hall’s behavior to the Melbourne Age but send it to David  McRae and leave it up to him to decide when to deliver it to the paper. David’s email address is . Please copy your missile to us at
. I think words like “astonished”; “bewildered”; “mystified” or “amazed” would be a delicate way to wrap your disgust.

Paul Connett

———————————————————————————

(This excerpt follows a discussion of Bassin’s paper on fluoridation and osteosarcoma)

 Shane Elson: The National Research Council have just put out a report last month in which there are a huge number of associations between fluoride and biological reactions, illnessses and other incidences of disease or discomfort that people may feel, that they associate in their report - this the   National Research Council a 12 member panel spent quite a long time looking at this. It has been called one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years and in their report - the 500 pages or thereabouts of their report  - in the various chapters - it is not only osteosarcoma it is a range of other - what are some times referred to as common illnesses or discomforts -  that people seem to be associated with. The difficulty we have here - in Australia-  is that none of this type of research is being done to the extent it’s being done in other places.

Commentator: Shane Elson stay with us, if you wouldn’t mind, while we go back now - at ninteen minutes past nine - to Dr.  Robert Hall, Victoria’s Chief Health Officer. Robert Hall - you are still with us there - what about that link that Shane Elson was referring to by the National Research Council - the link between fluoride and a whole range of physical ailments? Do you discount that research or that position?

Robert Hall: Our view is that the work that has been done by people like the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council - all of that supports the idea that we see that the amount of fluoride added to water supplies for improvement of oral health that you get a very strong benefit for oral health in all ages and we do not see an increase in adverse events. There are many claims that people make about a whole range of conditions that they say might be related to fluoride, but looking at the evidence  - and looking at it in its totality -  it is our view that it is not established that this is unsafe and it certainly is established that it is very effective in improving the oral health of all ages.

Commentator: But the National Research Council as Shane Elson drew our attention to - do you discount their point of view?

Robert Hall: Well the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council when it last looked at this …

Commentator: But the National Research Council is that a body that you just don’t take on board what there statements are?

Robert Hall: What we do is we look at evidence from - particularly review evidence - and as I say, we take the National Health and Medical Research Council  - so the reviews that we have looked at, we consider that this provides support and does not indicate that there are safety issues with the amount of fluoride that is added into the water supply in the way that is used for improvement of oral health.

Commentator: So the National Research Council - you ignore their position, as outlined by Shane Elson?

Robert Hall: We are not convinced by that argument- we are not convinced by that argument.

Commentator: Do you expect -  given that there is public opposition - given that it is vocal public opposition - do you actually - will there be any change in the public - in  the position of organizations such as DHS (Department of Human Services, PC) around this - will there be a greater degree of public consultation with actual meetings where both sides of an argument might be expressed - that sort of thing?

Robert Hall: Our approach is that the government has indicated that it wants to proceed with fluoridation of water supplies in country Victoria. It is our view that it is a safe and effective way of improving oral health and so we are progressing to implement that government policy.

Commentator: So no chance - it doesn’t sound as if there is going to be a change of policy from the state government and your instructions remain the same?

Robert Hall: That’s right.

Commentator: Robert Hall we will let you go  - I know that you have other committments this morning. So thank you for your time this morning.

Robert Hall: Thank you.

Commentator: Dr Robert Hall, Victoria’s Chief Health Officer…