|
"Quite honestly I was rather shocked to hear this allegation that I was not properly qualified, having fully qualified over 30 years ago. I didn't expect to be treated like this in NZ in the 21st Century." Says Dr Kevin Baker. At council submission hearings on Thursday night, Dr Neil Stephen, head of the School Dental Clinics, stated that Dr Baker had only trained as a doctor but had never qualified. This left all people attending the meeting with the impression that Dr Baker was a charlatan. In fact, Dr Baker trained at Cambridge University where he qualified with a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery and is very well qualified at the postgraduate level.
Dr Baker has recently come from the UK where only 11% of the country is fluoridated. "He hadn't realised the depths the pro-fluoridation lobby in New Zealand would stoop to protect their sacred cow of fluoridation. People in New Zealand wonder why more doctors and dentists in New Zealand do not speak out against fluoridation. Now they know. If they dare, the pro-fluoridation lobby will do their utmost to destroy their credibility and careers," says Mary Byrne of Fluoride Action Network New Zealand. “New Zealanders should be embarrassed that this how we treat much needed professional people who we have encouraged to live in our country. He has voiced his professional concern over a practice he sees is unsafe, unnecessary and unethical. Nor does he want his own two children to be exposed to the chemical, fluoride. However, New Zealand dentists from the Ministry of Health and District Health Boards think the Kapiti Coast District Councillors, not Dr Baker and his wife, should decide if the Baker’s children have fluoride or not.” Another Health official, Dr Stephen Palmer, labelled respected scientists and professionals, appearing in a DVD as 'extremists' with no credibility. “He even bemoaned a Nobel Prize winner in Medicine for advising the Swedish Government to stop fluoridation. The professionals in the DVD are being advised of these affronts. Kapiti councillors should be very wary of believing any claims made by the pro-fluoridation lobby since they will go as low as trying to ruin someone’s professional reputation to further their cause," says Ms Byrne. Even though the lobby group claimed to rely on only peer-reviewed and published studies, they presented councillors with data they had just extracted from the national data base. Given the small sample size Dr Neil Stephens said he had not expected it to be worthwhile. “Obviously, data is only “worthwhile” when it claims to show a benefit from fluoridation. This data needs to be made public. All large scale studies show no difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in New Zealand and around the world [1][2][3],” says Ms Byrne. Dr Baker is seeking legal advice on the defamatory remark. It remains to be seen what action the other professionals may take. References: [1] Consumption of nonpublic water: implications for children's caries experience - Jason M. Armfield and A. John Spencer, Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology Volume 32 Issue 4 Page 283 - August 2004
[2] "Water Fluoridation in Australia " (1996) Community Dental Health 13 (Suppl 2), 27.
[3] "The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren," Kumar & Iida Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2009 (Table 1) |