Misleading: Is Merilyn Haines the Innocent Casting Stones?

Once again, I’ve noticed a spike in the traffic to NewAnthro due to searches on Merilyn Haines and fluoridation. A quick search shows that the anti-fluoride crusaders are blowing their own trumpet over their successes so far this year in denying children additional protection to give their teeth the best chance of surviving a life time of service, not unlike the anti-vax crowd whom high-five one another when another parent chooses to expose their children to polio, measles mumps and rubella, various forms of hepatitis etc.

Further, I found that yesterday, Merilyn Haines was interviewed alongside Dr Michael Foley whom is not only a dentist, but also a former president of the ADA. I’m certain she walked away feeling she had done her cause justice, but anyone unblinkered on the subject could see that she was owned.

One needs only a single Merilyn quote from the interview; “It’s a bit misleading to say that it’s [fluoride] is natural”

So who is misleading?

    • Firstly, I’ve made the point before that you can extract sodium chloride (commonly known as table salt) from many sources; including the ocean and even your own urine! If you extract it well, it remains simply table salt – “industrial waste” is misleading.
    • Dr Foley reminds her that the fluorides used break down to the same ions and molecules found already in the water supply, but lead to a small increase in fluoride levels, which has been proven to increase dental health – Merilyn stating that the raw material prior to being added to the water is a “poison” is misleading.
    • Merilyn states that the fluorides used are allowed to include as much as 600 mg of lead per kilo. Firstly, that doesn’t mean that they do have that much. Secondly, 600 mg is 0.6 % of the mixture; this mixture is then diluted down to 1 part per million, thus such a water supply may have as much as 6 parts of lead per billion! I could understand if the fans of homeopathy may faint at such “high” concentrations, but for everyone else, she is overstating the exposure to lead which of course is misleading.
    • That she instead points to other trace chemicals found in the fluoride mixtures when asked about poisons is, in itself, misleading; if the fluorides are as bad as she states, no bait-and-switch would be required.
    • Merilyn argues that the study comparing tooth decay in Townsville children (fluoridated water supply) to Brisbane children (not fluoridated water supply) showed no significant difference in decay of permanent teeth. However, the children were aged between 5 to 12 years, with permanent teeth only starting to appear at the higher end of this study group, thus not having much exposure time to potential decay. Focusing on adult tooth decay in children, Merilyn, is misleading.
    • Merilyn refers to the 2007 NSW Dental Health Survey to support her case. She states that 25% of children had dental fluorosis. The report on the other hand states, “More than 97% of 8 to 12 year old children do not display any discernible signs of fluorosis.”
      Actually looking at the report, at best, she can only claim that fluoridation increases rates colouration of teeth on any level by 8%, however with the level of agreement between assessors and what is fluorosis and what is not, any more than the 3% is dubious (more here).
      The same report also states, “For all ages, only 40% of children from non-fluoridated areas, compared with 53% of children from  fluoridated areas were caries free
      Merilyn’s representation of the report is misleading.
    • Merilyn points to her access to good information, however, my previous articles and videos on fluoride would argue that this too is misleading. She refers often to bad sources or misrepresents the study, such as;
    • Merilyn, while not naming the paper, refers again to osteosarcoma. This relates to the Bassin et al (2006) which I have previously shown that the researchers involved do not agree with her conclusions, thus she again is misleading.

Merilyn’s “facts”

Dr Foley retorts at one point, “Merilyn, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts”.

The fact is, Merilyn needs to ignore the science and those who challenge her to maintain an erroneous position and her success is base purely upon misleading others over and over again until the scaremongering pulls them in line. There’s no surprise as to why Queensland has a number councils rejecting fluoridation when they have Queenslanders for “Safe” Water, Air and Food to deal with.

Find my previous articles on the subject here.


4 thoughts on “Misleading: Is Merilyn Haines the Innocent Casting Stones?

  1. Chester Douglass is not the author of the Basin study. He was the professor that signed off Basin’s thesis awarding her with a PHd. He then covered up the existence of this study until it was uncovered by others. The study has been peer reviewed and published in Cancer Causes and Control. Douglass finally released a study that he had previously said would refute Basin’s but it didn’t as Douglass looked at fluoride bone levels by biopsy when people were diagnosed or autopsy if they were already dead. This in not way refuted Basin, as the interesting finding she made was the incidence of osteosarcoma appears to be related to when a child has been ingesting fluoridated water, not the total concentration in the bone later in life.


    1. Thank you most enthusiastically for demonstration just how much yours is a crackpot conspiracy.

      Douglass went about it in an odd fashion to “cover up” a paper in published journal… Honestly, do you think or just repeat the same nonsense stuffed into your ears?

      Basin et al (2006) list a series of limitations to their own study. From Bassin et al (2006):

      “The lack of data available for other potential confounders is also a limitation. Fluoride may not be the causative agent; instead there may be another factor in drinking water correlated with the presence of fluoride.”

      “Although efforts were made to interview a parent or proxy respondent if the subject was deceased or incapacitated, it is possible that cases with more favorable prognosis may have been over-sampled.”

      So is Basin et al (2006) in on the conspiracy to undermine Basin et al (2006)?

      Science isn’t done by one study, but through increasing bodies of evidence of many studies all rigorously developed through scientific methodology. You’ve instead presented a story, a chilling one suitable from a plot for an interesting thriller, no doubt, but not one with scientific rigour and evidence. This is entirely typical of each anti-fluoride crusader whom pollutes NewAnthro.


  2. Moth. try being on the other side of the debate for a while and see how far you get before you start using the word conspiracy in the context some anti-fluoriders do. The evidence for on our side is overwhelming. There is no ‘crackpot’ about it. Its funny how so many pro-fluoriders seem to turn debates into very personal attacks.??? Isn’t your evidence alone enough to prove your point?


    1. If I spot a duck, I’ll call it a duck.

      I’m not going to entertain you here because I’ve had an endless number of enthusiast like yourself who do a google search, find a random page on NewAnthro, send me some glib comment and either ignore the effort I go on to undertake (not to mention all the other related media that I’ve already made – often already answering the comments made) or relent with some circular conversation.

      It is cracked pot because there are no respected relevant scientific bodies that reject water fluoridation at WHO recommended levels. There is no evidence from cities with decades of water fluoridation to WHO recommended levels of people getting sick due to fluoridation. What the anti-fluoridation people do is link to anti-f websites and challenge me to read their favoured anti-f book and comment and every time I entertain them, I find that what is asked of me is a pure waste of my time. Anyone scientific literate can see that the point – that fluoridation to WHO recommended levels is safe and effective – is not actually challenged. When I point this out it falls on deaf ears. Then morality is pulled out – ‘we should be able to choose.’

      Creationists will lead me to creationist websites and their favoured grey literature as well. They ignore anything that challenges their position and fall onto morality, in the guise of faith. And, yes, they are crack pots. Why shouldn’t I call out another group doing the same thing?

      No anti-f can explain why fluoride is being used if the science were in fact against it (some massive cover-up) without mind control or profiteering (excusing the fact that it’s very cheap). This is conspiracy ideation.

      I’ve done all I care to on the subject of fluoride. The true believer will die believing and no amount of scientifically backed debated on my behalf will alter that.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s