The Insulated Ideology of QAWF and Merilyn Haines

I must admit, Merilyn Haines has upset me. After I went to the effort to reply to her non-effort cut-and-paste job, I feel that the least she could do is read my reply and comment.

Understanding anything of such dogmatic devotions to certain ideas, I know that it was in fact far from the least that she could do, but rather more than she could be capable of doing. She has a world view, which ties in various expectations with the “known” result; fluoridation of water dumbs us down and destroys our bones and teeth.

I’ve quickly shown that, if we are dumbed down by fluoride exposure, it hasn’t done anything to lower the grades of our children (the most susceptible to fluoride and likely to express any adverse reactions). What I found instead could form the basis for a valid (albeit weak) hypothesis that fluoride may in fact improves student performance, however, I am very certain that the only factors that play a role in student performance were environmental (not fluoride exposure, obviously); largely school practices, funding, teacher quality and the like.

As for bones, fluorosis is a problem, but when fluoride levels are low, this problem is so too.

To maintain the club; Queenslanders for safe water, air and food (QAWF),* means insulating oneself from all evidence to the contrary. For this reason, it is of no surprise that Merilyn Haines has ignored me. Her and a few friends probably Google “fluoride” and/or “fluoridation” to see what new hits they get. When they spot one that seems to counter their position, they skim over the text – to be careful not to allow it to set off any concerns that they surely must feel in some deep dark pocket in their brain – before stamping the site with an approved Merilyn cut-and-paste job and black listing the site with all their colleagues.

Any fundamentalist follows similar patterns: condemn thou whom defies the “truth”!

It was for that reason that I addressed her comment directly as a post with her name in it; I was fishing their Google search and if she had valid conflicting evidence to my reply, I’d appreciate her providing it……. silence…….

So instead, I must focus on the interest group “QAWF” itself. It doesn’t take a genius to realise the whole venture is a ruse. These Queenlanders don’t waste a thought on water, air or food quality, only the presences or absence of fluoride. They don’t even have any pages on air quality AT ALL – a bit of a knock to a bloke whose career has focused on air quality, atmospheric chemistry and meteorology. Maybe this would be different if power plants were emitting fluoride in Qld.

Food too, only gets a look into with how much fluoride may be in it.


I’ve had exposure also with water quality – both water reserves and river systems. Pollution from agricultural run-off, residential run-off and water crafts are big problems. On the Murray system, keeping an eye on the houseboats is imperative (effluence is even a concern here).

With our water supplies, ensuring that the water is safe to drink is a MASSIVE job. You cannot stop birds from making use of the water themselves. Birds often carry parasites and bacteria that can be of great concern if consumed by a person. For this reason, each reservoir has teams of people continually sampling and testing the water quality, presence of microbial activity as well as concentrations of added chemicals (such as chlorine and fluoride).

In my initial post on the subject I discussed how this is done often to NATA accreditation levels.

If QAWF were really concerned about safe AWF, they wouldn’t have a website dedicated to a myth about fluoride, but instead active research and monitoring and engagement with local and state governments to ensure the health and safety of all Queenslanders.

Instead, it is obvious they do not care about such noble causes and are instead entirely dedicated to the freedom for cavities in Queensland; maybe they should change their name to that….?


*they abbreviate it to have air before water – I don’t know why, “QWAF” would be fitting, seeing they are so concerned about water, not to mention it’s easier to remember. Although the Urban Dictionary may give us hints as to why they don’t use QWAF (and I’ve avoided the worst colloquial terms).  As discussed above, they are obsessed almost entirely with water so it’s no surprise they continue with this mix up.

23 thoughts on “The Insulated Ideology of QAWF and Merilyn Haines

  1. ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE – Epidemic – Fluoride/Aluminium

    YOU’VE BEEN WARNED – Australia already faces Alzheimer’s Disease (& Kidney disease) epidemics –

    STOP ‘WATER POLLUTION/FLUORIDATION’ immediately permanently & irrevocably for all time or face the ruin.
    Dementia, including Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is fast becoming the greatest public health issue, ever. In the UK the Alzheimer’s Society recently stated that one in three persons over the age of 65 will die from AD – and it’s increasing so fast that in thirty years time the prevalence is expected to treble (do the maths and shiver!). Your children will live with fluorosis, but they will die with dementia.

    Since the evidence that environmental exposure to ionic aluminium salts, such as the aluminium sulphate used in water treatment, is a leading cause of AD. There is a 50% and 150% increase in AD in areas where the water contains only half the permitted maximum of 0.2ppm. Fluoride in water – increases the speed at which it is absorbed and transferred to the brain. Adding Fluoride To Drinking Water Is Literally Insane. Fluoridation is bad on its own, but in the presence of aluminium its effects are becoming catastrophic as our ‘aluminium clocks’ tick away the countdown to Alzheimer’s – fluoride speeds up that lethal clock..

    By Doug Cross UKCAF

    CV http://www


    1. This is probably why you were flagged as spam. It’s clearly a cut and paste job that you post wherever your search term “fluoride / fluoridation” picks up an article contrary to your beliefs and it reads like propaganda.

      My children – both of which have lived their full lives in fluoridated regions – do not have fluorosis.

      Only 10% of the UK drink fluoridated water, so if your point is that rising rates of AD results from exposure to fluoridated water, that’s only a small subset of the UK population.

      I’ll look into the census data and see if I can find any trends in rates of Alzheimer’s Disease to match exposure to fluoridated drinking water in Aust and get back to you.


  2. OMFG – I nearly wasted 3 mins reading this garbage. The whole POINT is garbage. You sat down and spent a lot of time on this like some kind of political speech. What a waste of time. Nobody cares you fool. Who cares if it’s fluoride, or BEX pills, fear of spiders, eating disorders or suicidal thoughts. It’s not the friggin chemicals you dince. You miss the point. It’s about freedom of choice. If I don’t want pesticide on my apples, I can buy organic. If I don’t want second hand smoke, I leave the room. If I don’t want hormones in my Meat, I’ll become a Veggo. But don’t tell me that I have to have whatever medication some fruitcake decides I need. Don’t tell me I have to shower in this stuff, and then tell me I have to wear sunscreen to protect me from the sun!! NEED I MAKE THE POINT!
    Don’t talk about fluoride like it matters! Moron. Get the point? Defend freedom of choice, not some vague statement about how you really truly care about health.
    BTW, do also you defend all those additives in soft drinks too? Do you live on GMO corn? IS ANYONE FORCING YOU TO EAT FROZEN PIZZA EVERY NIGHT? What’s your story? What freedoms do you have?
    Absolute waste of time if you — GROSSLY MISS THE WHOLE POINT RIGHT?


    1. Sorry Larry, but you only get this post on New Anthro once – I’m no fan of copying and pasting the same message, especially tripe, on every post one takes a disliking to (admittedly, you dropped the “OMFG” on the second one – worried about the blasphemy perchance?)

      Do you think you do your “cause” any justice by going on the hysterical rant? I would argue you help my cause – refer you to my videos on Chris Monckton in which I let him do most of the talking; that is where the real discredit to his position is done.. It’s just nuts.

      Anyway, on to your point. To articulate it more concisely (not to mention, in a less hostile, fanatical tone); what you speak of is autonomy; the right to choose. In fact I do talk about it in this article. I’m certain that the effort of referring to that article and actually reading it is beyond you, simply because with every hysterical comment I’ve had thus far on fluoride, I’ve noticed a trend to not actually read or view the offending material, so I’ll sum it up briefly here.

      What about chloride? Why are you not equally pissed off about showering in chlorinated water or drinking the stuff? I’ll tell you why; before we sterilised public water, babies went directly from the boob to the beer in many western societies simply because water supply could not be trusted. In this post above, I make the point that birds tend to hang out around bodies of water and birds present many bacteria and parasites that are very dangerous to humans if consumed. You own your “freedom” to drinking fresh water to it being chemically treated with a very poisonous chemical, chloride.

      No-one every hears a panicked cry over chloride however, because no-one is stupid enough to do so. Fluoride does reduce tooth decay effectively and is cheap. If you love tooth decay, feel free to buy spring water – my wife and I do quite often largely due to taste… You don’t hear us complaining.

      BTW, no, I don’t defend soft drinks – I refuse to let my children drinking them. I do and will continue to defend GM food until, in the unlikely event, they are proven to be bad. Like the fluoride nonsense, the arguments against GM food are largely batty… I won’t both linking you to them (I doubt you’ll look at them anyway), but if they interest you, please type “GM” in the search section above.

      Finally, if you wish to continue commenting, please avoid cutting and pasting and especially, avoid resorting to juvenile name calling. Thanks.


      1. If you actually read what I wrote and took a look at this article too, you would see I’ve discussed the question of autonomy. When someone resorts to, “it’s against mah freeedom” you know they don’t really have much of a valid argument – it’s the last resort of the scoundrel. Living in a society by sheer demand reduces individual autonomy.


  3. Dear Sir, I noticed my first comment about Alzheimer’s Disease/Fluoride/Aluminium not showing up yet, perhaps you haven’t got back to the site as yet, but when you do here is another one I hope you will put up. Thank you, Diane


    Dr Phillip R N Sutton, Ddsc (Melb), LDS, FRACDS.
    Formerly Academic Associate And Senior Research Fellow, Department Oral Medicine And Surgery, Dental School, University Of Melbourne.
    Author of “The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation” (1996) Quote from page 1:
    “We are all affected by this potentially dangerous fraud: The convincing of governments and people generally that it is ethical, safe and beneficial to medicate, compulsorily, many millions of people throughout their lives with small but uncontrollable doses of a cumulative and very toxic substance because of the notion that it reduces the prevalence of dental decay.
    All this, although neither its safety nor any scientifically-proved reduction in the number of decayed teeth has been demonstrated”


    1. I hadn’t seen your posts because they were automatically marked as spam and I tend not to look at the spam box.

      I have demonstrated in my various articles and video reply to the Merilyn Haines interview that the data from numerous sources clearly shows that fluoridated water does reduce the rates of tooth decay. Throughout these articles, I have also presented scientific papers and reviews that find no compelling evidence that the use of fluoride as it is done in Australian water supplies, provides no compelling evidence for harm beyond mild fluorosis in a small section of the population. A 16yr old book, grey literature no less, by a former academic associate isn’t evidence to the contrary.


  4. sorry you don’t believe in our freedom to choose whether we have toxic waste thrown into our water supplies … equally sorry you don’t seem to understand that the mercury, cadmium, lead and arsenic are all probably or known carcinogens … wow, and you say the arguments against fluoridation of water supplies are “batty” …then you say “avoid resorting to juvenile name calling” .. give me a break!


    1. Why are you sorry, or is that just your way to sound condescending? Apples and oranges here…

      Firstly, in my video that finally sparked off all you grumpy anti-fluoride enthusiasts, Merilyn Haines in Interview, I explain that calling it “toxic waste” is about as sensible as calling Sodium Chloride “Urea extract” – a chemical is a chemical wherever it is derived from. In the same presentation, I also point that these impurities (Merilyn instead refers to cadmium, mercury and lead) are at known, trace levels in a mix that is then diluted down to one part per million. That they are trace elements, are this put one can only assume their carcinogenic properties have reached homoeopathy grade!

      I noted that you completely avoid my question over chloride – that is so common; ignore the reply to question and just re-say it instead. I do understand the situation very well and have dealt with numerous anti-ists, from climate “sceptics” to creationists and anti-vax groups. I stan by the point that such people insulate themselves from information that they dislike.

      Lastly, calling the arguments against fluoridated water “batty” is impersonal and based upon my observation of the science and the hysterical nature of many of the comments I have had from the anti-fluoride crowd. On the other hand, Larry directly called me, a fool, a dince and a moron. I did nothing of that nature – that is juvenile name calling.


      1. Yes all well and good moth, except Sodium Chloride is monitored well, and kills bugs. Putting Fluoride for a failed reason to prevent tooth decay, without any safety tests done nationally – funded by the government who approved it, is a failure in the department to ensure it is truly safe and effective.

        My teeth have no effect since I avoided the toothpaste and tap water. I have a reverse osmosis system.

        Anyways isn’t the issue the right to choose? How does each individual get his dose? This is actually my question.

        Is this why 7 cups of water a day is recommended?

        Natural Fluoride, could be, let’s say, extracted from sea water and placed into our – er – whatever our water consists of. But noooo, they place an industrial pollutant in there.

        If you want simple evidence, I’ll guarantee countries who do not add this to their water, have the same teeth quality, perhaps even better.

        Fluoride is found in processed foods. I felt the back of my teeth start to feel rusty, you know like when you take metamusil and the mixture isn’t dissolved properly. I also feel sluggish, and a bit of a headache.

        Climate Change is happening. But cutting out Co2 is stupid. Co2 is necessary for plants. What needs to be done is a world-wide coalition in an effort to combat it. Not one country standing alone. All must do this. Then obviously you got the economy into trouble thanks to a certain fraud system called the Federal Reserve System.

        Natural Fluoride is ok, since it’s very low levels. Artificial one is bad. If you are so sure that it is safe, then interview former workers who worked there and who developed sicknesses working in the factory.

        Place the Artificial Fluoride in your teeth. If it is so safe, and water makes it extremely soluble and suddenly and magically safe, then it must not be that bad to apply it directly to the area since toothpaste is based on that (And you can get plant-based toothpaste without this controversial poison)

        Sadly, I don’t think you will make the government see the light. I’d invite you though to have a constructive conversation (minus the attacks here) with former dental association dentists (who spoke out and got fired) who are still practicing, and with any smart anti-fluoride person.

        Anti and Pro are just a distraction. How about Pro-Poison and Anti-Poison. Hmm seems more like it.


      2. Thank you very much for providing other reader a brilliant example of the ignorance that tends to go hand-in-hand with the anti-fluoride enthusiasts.

        – Sodium chloride is table salt. Putting that in water supplies would render it about as potable as ocean water!
        – Fluoride is well monitored. I’ve linked to the SA guidelines as stated in the post above (if you actually cared to read it) where they state that the water is tested to NATA accreditation levels – look at the details on “Purity of Fluoride” on this post. I’ve included a link to NATA so you can learn more about it. In short – it’s a painful process to ensure your data is high enough quality.
        – I have, time and time again, demonstrated that tooth decay is lower in fluoridated regions from a wide range of research studies. But you can’t see that – this is why I refer to the position you hold as “insulated”. Thanks for the example.
        – I’ve also answered the ridiculous “industrial pollutant” point in the video and seeing as you’ve mass bombed each post on fluoride, you have seen the page (and I doubt have watched the video) so that’s all I need to say there.
        – “If you want simple evidence, I’ll guarantee countries who do not add this to their water, have the same teeth quality, perhaps even better.” BS – IF you can looked at any of the evidence I’ve provided you would know that the opposite is true.
        – You’re example is subjective evidence – I’ve explained this, IF you have cared to look into it.
        – Artificial fluoride? lol… you realise it is just an atom, don’t you? They don’t engineer it in some crazy lab. Sodium Chloride (as you may remember from above is table salt) is just sodium chloride no matter where it’s sourced – you could get it from urine, but still it would just be sodium chloride and not urine extract! Geez…

        Actually read the articles and evidence provided by the person you blast your mouth off at in the future to avoid looking foolish by making it obvious that you haven’t a clue what they actually said, you obviously do not understand basic chemistry or what actually goes on in relation to water fluoridation and governmental management of the process.

        Again, thanks for providing a clear example of the ignorance found in your “poison” movement.


      3. Look at this video and report back to me.

        By the way, tell me more about you. Me, I’m just a citizen who spends his time donating to charities, signing petitions online, and living my life – also an activist – against mutilation, aka pro-life – anti-poison – anti-big government but pro-choice, pro-liberty.


      4. Why on Earth should I? You’ve illustrated precisely how little you’ve actually read or watched of the media that I’ve produced on the subject… I suspect you’re afraid you might learn something.


  5. The issue is Artificial Fluoride, the bad one vs Natural Fluoride, the good one – should be controlled.

    Nothing should be added. Citizens need to be educated to have green in their diet.


  6. Hi Moth.
    You seem rational, and I like to see that. Merilyn is also rational, I have met and discussed fluoride with her. Part of the issue here is trust. You trust what you have read and researched, and others trust their research.

    I have worked in a water treatment plant for a time, and discussed with council workers about the fluoridation chemical onsite, with it’s own windsock, as well as the chlorine gas containers and their windsock. Both also have audible alarms, and the WHS policy is to run upwind in the event of a spill. The chlorine room does not need a full hazmat suit with breathing apparatus, to enter it, which the fluoride room does.
    Both chemicals have skull and crossbones – poison – warning signs.

    Although they were both added to the drinking water, there is a very significant difference. One is used with the intent to sterilise the water. The other, is *allegedly* added to treat a disease – tooth decay – thereby making it a medication by definition. Medication: Noun 1. A substance used for medical treatment, esp. a medicine or drug.
    2. Treatment using drugs. The difference in intent is all important, legally. The propaganda premise of treating tooth decay is a diversion from the simple and obvious fact that most water is not consumed.

    Why would anyone pump tens of thousands of kilograms of medicine down the drain?
    Wash the car with the medicine, although it’s car washing characteristics have not been adequately studied.
    Safety to the fish populations has not been adequately studied either. Having worked at a Waste water treatment plant as well, I know they don’t remove the fluoride in the treatment process, so it goes into our rivers, (along with the chlorides and alum, and ammonium hydroxy and whatever else was used) where it persists in the environment. It is classed by the EPA as an environmental pollutant.

    I recognise both Chlorine and Fluorine are both halogens, and will strongly react with almost everything. Both can easily damage the human body.

    I pay water rates. I don’t have an issue with the chlorine, because the intention, for using it is honourable.
    I have huge issue with any form of medication placed in the general water supply. Sovereignty mate

    To illustrate this point, I am including my sonnet, Poison in the Waterhole.

    I will not sue you, local council board,
    But I will not pay you those water rates,
    Why don’t you undo the criminal fraud,
    This toxic drugging forced on my mates?


    With zero safety testing on this drug,
    What is it doing in my house water?
    Is there a Decepticon looking smug?
    Cheap toxic waste disposal supporter.

    I authorise withholding of my rates,
    Until clean fresh water flows to my gates.


    1. I’m afraid you have the situation entirely wrong.

      She made trust “her research” but I do not trust research at all – instead, I go to the effort of understanding it. In doing so, I’ve found that much of the science she refers to, she does so where the research itself doesn’t back her up and then she turns to studies in places, especially China, where they have environmental exposure to many potentially damaging chemicals and multiple sources of fluoride. She claims that the research hasn’t been done in Australia before incorrectly suppose what is actually stated in the research that has been done in Aust.

      For instance, whenever she talks of osteosarcoma she refers to Bassin et al (2006). That study was a small part of a larger group. In one group, they found a higher incidence of osteosarcoma, but they could not replicate this finding and thus stress that they do not believe they have evidence for fluoridated water causing osteosarcoma – although Merilyn states otherwise… Maybe she knows more than the actual researchers…

      With the 2007 NSW Dental Health Survey, she states that 25% of children have fluorosis, but the report itself states, “More than 97% of 8 to 12 year old children do not display any discernible signs of fluorosis.” I’ve later learned that the other 22% she claims comes from cases where fluorosis is unnoticeable. She says she is concerned about fluorosis because it causes mental harm to children due to self-image issues. How on Earth can that can relate to fluorosis that is unnoticeable?

      I suggest you watch my short video reply to anti-fluoriders, because I’m simply continuing to repeat myself to each of you independently (without evidence that any of you actually read anything that I go to the effort to create).

      I’ve worked for the SA EPA and I have visited water treatment plants myself (independently of each other). That both Chlorine and Fluoride packages have warnings is irrelevant if the chemicals are used to standards outlined by the World Health Organisation and Australian health standards – and I have listed these references to her work in my articles regarding fluoride.

      While on the surface, you seem reasonable, you openly use language of her group. Why do you write “*allegedly*”? Is that because you think it doesn’t work or that you think there might be other, sinister, reasons to adding it water? If it’s the former, I really suggest you take a little time to look over the information I’ve already gathered on the subject; it does work. If it’s the latter, well, unless you can produce hard evidence, I’m going to have to conclude that you’re a conspiracy theorist crackpot.

      As for the medication stuff and the tens of kilos down the drain etc; one part per MILLION. It is a small price to part and were it has been in place for 40yrs or more at Australian standards, no problems have been observed. I take offence when people reject reality, observed through empirical evidence and scientific rigour and substitute their own, largely based on unsubstantiated fantasy. I do not wish to see us slip back into a Dark Age and until strong evidence supports a position, I will simply test it and test it and test it.


  7. Hi Moth,
    You intrigue me because you have reached different conclusions to my own from the available evidence.
    We will argue if we continue, and I, like you, have no interest in that.
    I am part way through the book, The Case against Fluoride, and I would be honoured if you would allow me to purchase you a copy.
    Then I can read it, and you can too.
    And we’ll talk again, down the track a bit.
    Would that be alright?


    1. Why on Earth would I want to read grey literature in regards to human health, when I have access to peer reviewed medical journals and the capacity to read the information provided the World Health Organisation?

      I understand where good quality information can be found and can also tell not only a good quality journal from any other, but also a good quality paper through following up on later citation, unlike Merilyn and alike, whom simply find a paper, cherry pick whatever sounds good (whether or not it actually says what they want it to) and hold it up as gospel.

      If this book was of value, I wouldn’t need you to buy me a copy, but thank you in any case.


      1. It is not grey literature. Each of the 3 authors put forth well reasoned arguments, from highly qualified scientific minds, and provide tenfold more references than any weak, biased pro fluoride literature, such as the Douglas overview of the Bassin study. Douglas is paid by colgate, highlighting his dishonest bias. Goodbye.


      2. Do you understand what grey literature is? There’s no quality control overarching the literature itself. Does it fairly represent the standing scientific understanding and represent the most strongly supported ideas properly or not? The reader must be, at best, a poor judge because experts are not present to assess it prior to to publishing.

        For example, on climate Monckton provides excellent and often, on the face of it, compelling arguments against anthropogenic climate change. When one instead refers to the actual science, one finds a very different and far more convincing story.

        Authorship is inherently bias. That book is not equivalent to the actually scientific literature, from which I prefer to get my understanding on subjects.

        You provide no evidence that Douglas is “paid” by Colgate, meaning that you’ve wasted both our times producing a non-argument. Even if he is paid by anyone, what relevance does it have to do with anything? That is no evidence of wrong-doing. It’s simply a cop-out for someone without the capacity to argue against another individual’s evidence.

        I’ve seen the same with the climate “debate”: a scientist invests in green tech, thus all related scientists are making up the scare to cash in. It’s called “ad hominem” and is at best, a cheap trick. Provide evidence of 1) Douglas’s Colgate funding, 2) his academic fraud and/or peer reviewed literature illustrating his continually support for an unsubstantiated position and 3) how this interfered with Basin et al (2006) prior to labelling the individual dishonest.

        On the other hand, from my hard work pointing at the many many errors of Merilyn Haines, and clearly many of her supporters, I’ve witnessed that nothing I can say alters any of your positions one iota. I can even make a video in which she states something and place it directly against contradicting reality. Such insulation, coupled with continual bold claims without evidence is little different to religious devotion.

        Perhaps, just perhaps, these authors realise the zealous passion some people have against fluoride, with a hair-trigger for mistrust for all things they do not understand and have made to cash in on this…? I’m certain, as you stated yourself, that the book isn’t free and so the authors are profiting on book sales. Your willingness to purchase the book for me only favours them also (plus reminding me of a young-Earth creationist whom provided me the book, Life — How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, when I was an undergrad). Is it at all possible they found this devotion and are simply pandering to it to make a dirty dollar?

        Just a thought.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s