Predetermined ‘research’ outcome commissioned by Waikato Uni

Predetermined ‘research’ outcome commissioned by Waikato University

August 2014

“This is the answer we want – we just need someone to do the ‘research’ to say it” advertises Professor Daniel Zirker of Waikato University.

The research seeks to prove a false theory – that the Hamilton City Council’s original decision to end fluoridation was an undermining of democracy by vested interests. In fact, it was the referendum campaign, run by pro-fluoridation vested interests, leading to reversal of that decision that was the undermining of democracy.

Why would Waikato University faculty staff want to conduct such bogus research and besmirch the name of the University? Does the answer lie with a small group of the university faculty who took an active role in the campaign to overturn the Council’s decision. They even convened a forum with a so-called ‘expert panel’ to answer public questions. This ‘expert panel’ had to ‘phone a friend’ called Mr Google to answer even the most basic questions put to them. Of course they just gave answers from pro-fluoridation websites like that of the Ministry of Health.

Is this proposed bogus ‘research’ intended to justify to themselves that their role in undermining democracy by misleading the public about the science around fluoridation was actually justified?

Fluoridation is supported by a tiny minority of lobbyists around the world. They have immense power and influence, and there is big money at stake. The tactics used by this powerful minority were documented in sociological research published in 1991. We recommend Prof Zirker read it before embarking on a religious crusade to convert the ‘poor benighted heathen opposing fluoridation’ to the glorious religion of fluoridationism. This is where the research should be focussed, not on those advocating truth and transparency around the fluoridation issue.

The fact is that Hamilton City Councillors buckled to political pressure, garnered through an obscene propaganda campaign orchestrated by the Waikato DHB. The DHB even admitted they used propaganda through social media to achieve this undermining of democracy. The original decision was not based on lobbying, but on an examination of the science presented by both sides, with equal opportunity. Conversely, those voting in the referendum had a very narrow opportunity to hear the facts, especially when the Waikato Times was an active partner in the campaign to mislead the public. It even falsified the results of its online surveys, claiming majority votes for fluoridation when the majority was 2:1 against fluoridation.

If Prof Zirker wants to look at vested interests, he should start with the Waikato Times and the NZ Dental Association. He should also look at the DHBs’ Crown Funding Agreements, which ultimately require all DHBs to promote fluoridation as part of their funding.

ENDS

© Scoop Media