On our Facebook page, we posted about Roger Stratford who is running for Hamilton City Council, that tried to silence the science. Here is everything that happened.
If you missed the Stuff news story, you can read about it here.
Dr Ken Perrott wrote a story on this, showing screenshots of the discussions and how Roger lied to his face.
Dr Alison Campbell from the Waikato University also wrote an article about this.
Fluoride Free Hamilton released a statement, basically saying they have nothing to do with Roger:
“Let it be known that the email sent to the Chemistry Dept of the University of Waikato by Roger Stratford was not authorised by Pat McNair or anyone from Fluoride Free Hamilton or FANNZ. Roger has no authorisation to speak on our behalf or to advise anyone what our policies or strategies may be or to seek guidance or advice for us, from anyone, on future public discussions or any other matters.
Please note that we are not wanting to constrict the fluoride debate and definitely do not agree with Roger. We are happy to debate the science of fluoridation any time.
Fluoride Free Hamilton has no official membership at all. In fact Roger Stratford has never worked on any Fluoride Free Hamilton campaign, has never met us or been involved in any way with our group of supporters. He also has no way of knowing what the consensus of opinion is with our group of supporters so he certainly cannot say he represents us.
The Waikato Times has been asked to print a public retraction of the article in tomorrow’s paper.”
As you can see there was no public retraction of the article. If you look at the screenshots (or the actual link to the post), no one actually had a problem with what Roger said. He seemed to be an active member of their group commenting.
Roger Stratford posted a comment on the above stuff news article:
“Much of modern science is value-laden, no less so than that of fluoridation science. We are not considering The Laws of Thermodynamics here, which are immutable. I certainly do not oppose the facts of science being aired, but encourage this in the appropriate forum. The opinion pieces in the morning paper over breakfast table is not the proper place for lecture material to be aired, that venue belongs to the lecture theatre or lab. The Chemistry Department, of which I am an avid supporter, may feel out of its comfort zone with the politics mused in my email, but no less so than the lay person feels out of his/her comfort zone with the jargon of fluoridation science. How can we reasonably expect the layperson to assess lecture material, which takes years of training, to assess their position on the referendum? That position should be based on the credibility and reasonableness of each sides’ presentations and arguments. I encourage you all to listen to the arguments of the anti-fluoride groups with an open mind and vote according to the way you see fit. I will vote against fluoride being added but you will have to make up your own minds. Good luck!”
If you wondering what Roger was talking about when he said, “The opinion pieces in the morning paper over breakfast table is not the proper place for lecture material to be aired”. He was talking about this in the paper pages 10 and 11.
On his “Roger Stratford for Hamilton City Council” page, he said he will be pulling out, so one less anti-fluoridation person on the council:
“…But I’m pulling out anyway. I’m not receiving the level of support I was hoping for, nor any backing from existing councillors. Have posted up my profile statement. What this means for the community is that Hamilton can look forward to the return of fluoridated water to drink and Auckland’s anti-fluoride campaign will become unhinged. It was nice while it lasted, I’m sure you will agree…”
2018 update:
Roger Stratford has gotten in contact with us to tell us his side of the story.
“My original comments on Hamilton Fluoride Free Facebook page were an impromptu response to an over-enthusiastic member. After 10 minutes I resolved to remove them from my server, due to their provocative nature, however, changed my mind and left them there due to unexpectedly positive feedback from leader Pat McNair and other members.
Most of my local election opposition came from Antifluoridationist elements, despite myself publicly advocating their cause through the newspapers. I wanted to publicly debate the issue with a chemistry academic, so I emailed the departmental secretary at my alma mater university. The one proviso being that I alone would be able to bring in supporting texts. The academic would be confident enough in his knowledge not to require this. Unfortunately, this turned sour when the Waikato Times got involved due to a claim from some nutter privately messaging me on Facebook, claiming I had ‘led’ (sic) to him.
In truth, I had tried to set up a meeting with the chemistry department so that between us we could work out a common group of shared beliefs between the two opposing sides in the debate. Presented with the mutually accepted scientific facts, members of the public would be in a better position to decide their own positions in the upcoming fluoridation referendum. It was and remains my belief that these chemists have an inherent conflict of interest over fluoridation since it occupies their subject area, hence their accusations of pseudoscience over public opposition.
There was no intent to ‘silence’ science on my part, rather to simplify science for the voting public, so that they could choose where the greater strengths of argument lay.R. Stratford,
BSc (Waikato).”
Thank you, Dan, for showing an interest in my social media account. (Who sent you, come on now, it was Vladimir, wasn’t it?). I have been truthful throughout my campaigns, despite what this jumped-up school teacher and Turner Diaries’ troll otherwise imply. It’s true that most of my opposition originates from anti-fluoride side, in that respect, we share a similarity. (They don’t want to share credit with a lone wolf, especially a ‘mere male’).
All the university’s own published texts isolate fluoride among the halides as the exception from trend in chemical behaviour, noting the layout of the atomic orbitals, with reference to the energy required to excite an e- based on the relative energy levels of the d-orbitals, with respect to the 2s.
‘That little bit of extra protection’ you say is offered through fluoridation is not nearly enough to protect children’s teeth when exposed to soft drink daily. We’ve done away with sunbeds, choosing vitamin B exposure by other means. Fluoridation is an American science. Like Trump, it should stay there.
Roger.
Hi Roger
Thanks for commenting. Since this was 4 year ago I had forgotten the details of this case. I had followed some of your comments on social media to try sum up the whole case. If you want to add a comment to the end of this article to explain your side of the story, I might be willing to edit the article for you.
“That little bit of extra protection”
Up to 40% fewer cavities.
“is not nearly enough to protect children’s teeth when exposed to soft drink daily”
Not a silver bullet but is part of the solution to improve oral health.
“We’ve done away with sunbeds, choosing vitamin B exposure by other means”
Sunbeds cause cancer. Fluoride ions at 0.7 ppm don’t.
“Fluoridation is an American science. Like Trump, it should stay there.”
Fluoridation is studied all over the world. There have been 17 major peer-reviews of fluoridation undertaken across the world by recognised academic authorities in the past twenty years:
http://www.dentist.ie/_fileupload/fluoridation/List%20of%20general%20health%20reviews%20of%20fluoridation%20since%201994.doc
All showing the safety and efficiency of fluoridation. There is no respected health organisation in the world that is against fluoridation.
The FDI World Dental Federation representing over one million dentists in 134 countries, reaffirmed their strong support for fluoridation as essential in promoting oral health, at its annual meeting.
http://msof.nz/wp-content/uploads/FDI-2014-Policy-Statement-on-Water-Fluoridation.pdf
Thanks.
My original comments on Hamilton Fluoride Free Facebook page were an impromptu response to an over enthusiastic member. After 10 minutes I resolved to remove them from my server, due to their provocative nature, however changed my mind and left them there due to unexpectedly positive feedback from leader Pat McNair and other members.
Most of my local election opposition came from Antifluoridationist elements, despite myself publicly advocating their cause through the newspapers. I wanted to publicly debate the issue with a chemistry academic, so I emailed the departmental secretary at my alma mater university. The one proviso being that I alone would be able to bring in supporting texts. The academic would be confident enough in his knowledge not to require this. Unfortunately this turned sour when the Waikato Times got involved due to a claim from some nutter privately messaging me on Facebook, claiming I had ‘led’ (sic) to him.
In truth I had tried to set up a meeting with the chemistry department so that between us we could work out a common group of shared beliefs between the two opposing sides in the debate. Presented with the mutually accepted science facts, members of the public would be in a better position to decide their own positions in the upcoming fluoridation referendum. It was and remains my belief that these chemists have an inherent conflict of interest over fluoridation, since it occupies their subject area, hence their accusations of pseudo science over public opposition.
There was no intent to ‘silence’ science on my part, rather to simplify science for the voting public, so that they could choose where the greater strengths of argument lay.
R. Stratford,
BSc (Waikato).
Just as it will get cooler, so oral health will improve; science doesn’t know — we need four more years.