|
Copy List
Law and Order - Covert Scientific Corruption
Stark
testimony of fluoridation failure and the commercial and legal rort
By Glen
S.R. Walker
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE –
DEFINITION
Refusal to obey laws
of the community, the population. Civic - of community, population. (Oxford
Dictionary)
Civil Disobedience is an
attack on the foundation of our culture, liberties and the Australian
Constitution set in stone, rules of Government and actions of all people in
all places alike at all times.
Civil Disobedience comes
and goes in many directions, often ignored by people in privileged positions
dominating our cultural heritage as written in the Constitution.
Spin doctors often decide
law in relation to matters of Civil Disobedience and its effect on
particular circumstances, failing compliance to the Constitution. There is
always the "third man" in the conveyance of a conclusion.
Civil Disobedience is
the failure to meet Australian obligatory laws, a responsibility that
Democracy defines as "all people in all places alike".
The question is:-
Can an action by Government, politicians, bureaucrats, Health Departments,
Ministers of Health, daily force-feeding, "drugging", the population with
poisonous fluoride chemicals, especially considering those chemicals are NOT
REGISTERED pharmaceutically for human use. (U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, U.S. E.P.A., Report to U.S. Congress), be classified as
Civil Disobedience?
The following 15 examples
provide sufficient evidence to confirm that the actions by Government
departments and individuals in relation to artificial fluoridation of public
drinking water supplies are a Civil Disobedience offence.
Strike One for Civil
Disobedience
Compulsory fluoridation
is surely Civil Disobedience when and if honest respect is given to the
Australian Constitution which reads:
Section 51(xxiiiA) states in part:
"The provision of maternity allowances,
widows pensions ... medical and dental services, (but not so as to
authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and
family allowance." (Emphasis added)
Is it a case of Civil
Disobedience by politicians conscripting mass medication of the population
when the Constitution states otherwise?
Strike Two for Civil
Disobedience
The fluoride chemical
used to fluoridate Australian drinking water supplies is Sodium
Silicofluoride, imported from U.S.A. where it is collected from within the
chimneys of fertiliser factories as a pollutant too toxic to emit to the
atmosphere.
As fluoridation is a
medication, there to treat the people not the water, it should follow that
sodium silicofluoride added to drinking water supplies should be of a
Pharmaceutical quality chemical required by law, as for all other drugs and
medicines.
"As in animals, certain enzymes in human
tissues are inhibited by fluoride."
World
Health Organization
Strike Three for Civil
Disobedience
The sodium silicofluoride
used is a crude quality unpurified poisonous pollutant forced on the
community by Government Acts of Parliament.
Strike Four for Civil
Disobedience
The great W.H.O.
endorsement quoted so often, records their chemical description of sodium
silicofluoride:
"Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans", as:
"an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide, a
rodenticide (rat poison) to worm pigs, as an insecticide in, lawns, shrubs,
carpeting, woollen fabrics." (All to kill)
This is the same sodium
silicofluoride pollutant used in Melbourne drinking water.
Fluoride is also the
important chemical in Sarin War Gas! Under "Effects on intermediary
metabolism", W.H.O. state:
"As in animals certain enzymes in human
tissues are inhibited by fluoride."
This is what they called
"a natural product"! Medically speaking, anyone forcing a community to drink
an enzyme inhibitor is a danger to humanity, or guilty of Civil
Disobedience.
Strike Five for Civil
Disobedience
The Government
Pharmaceutical law relative to drugs and medicine requires the supplier to
label medicine and drugs with full, clear, unambiguous directions for use,
carefully printing the required DOSE and warnings of side
effects.
Government compulsory
fluoridation is guilty of failure on each of those requirements of
Law.
The Australian High Court
1992 ruled that a Medical Doctor's duty, as a prescriber of a drug, must
advise the patient of any dangers or side effects from the proposed medical
treatment.
Fluoridation, a medicine,
is a force-fed uncontrollable fluoride dose, a daily dose controlled by each
person's individual thirst, which differs enormously between all humans
because of insurmountable variables. The "recommended" dose can be vastly
exceeded in hot conditions, loss of water from sweat alone can be nearly a
litre an hour for soldiers in Iran - Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April
03.
Medical Treatment Act
1987 in the Federal Parliament states in its "Preamble":
"The Parliament recognises that it is
desirable:
(a) to give protection to the patient's
right to refuse unwanted medical treatment;
(b) to state clearly the way in which a
patient can signify his or her wishes in regard to medical care;"
The Victorian Parliament
introduced their Medical Treatment Bill in 1986. Part of their Bill stated:
"If a medical practitioner continues with
medical treatment despite a refusal then an offence is committed."
It is desirable "to give protection to the
patient's right to refuse unwanted medical treatment."
Australian Federal
Parliament Medical Treatment Act 1987
Seems "They" understand
the Constitution but think or hope it does not apply to compulsory
fluoridation.
Is fluoridation a
medicine?
The Australian
Therapeutic Goods Administration, through their National Drugs and Poisons
Schedule Committee supplied the following official description of MEDICINE
(2002 ):
See claims by dentists
and others how fluoridation works.
"Medicine means:
(a) therapeutic goods that are represented
to achieve, or are likely to achieve, their principal intended action by
pharmacological, chemical, immunological or metabolic means in or on the
body of a human or animal."
Strike Six for Civil
Disobedience
Fluoride
Toothpaste
The question never
answered is how fluoride toothpaste containing 1000 p.p.m. fluoride,
compared with fluoridated drinking water supplies only permitted 1 p.p.m.F.,
by Law, was removed from the official Government Poison Schedules,
originally classified as Schedule S.5. Poison. All Poison official
notification on containers, tubes and packages were removed!
The answer given by the
N.H. and M.R.C., on behalf of the Government is that Fluoride Toothpaste is
a toiletry and does not come under the Poisons Act.
Is it a Civil
Disobedience case to officially alter the meaning and understanding of "a
poison" by using unintelligent and indeed dangerous methods to support
this questionable act of changing chemistry and pharmacology for fluoride
commercialism and permitting a registered poison to be added to toothpaste?
Strike Seven for Civil
Disobedience
Government Ministers do
not answer questions on fluoridation relative to their position in the
Parliament (Australian Fluoridation News, Sept.-Oct. 2002).
Strike Eight for Civil
Disobedience
Children in Australia are
suffering from Dental Fluorosis, the mottling of their teeth, caused by
fluoride ingestion.
Governments hide concerns
of harm to so many children caused by this compulsory ingestion of fluoride
chemicals (Baby formulae food).
Strike Nine for Civil
Disobedience
Why are Australian
politicians so mind entrenched about compulsion for fluoridation, a forced
medication, when there is no published research showing the chemical used,
Sodium Silicofluoride, is safe for humans? - U.S. Senate Report, F.D.A. and
E.P.A.
That political entrenched
fluoride mind-set attitude gives no public explanation as to where it is
taught and the source of such mind control.
The Australian political
and, indeed, scientific support for fluoridation is in complete medical and
scientific differential from the advanced scientific countries of Western
Europe where fluoridation is banned or never used.
The following countries
do not daily force-feed their people with fluorides:
"Austria, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, West Germany,
Yugoslavia, Spain less than 1 %. (GR.S. Report to Congress 1992)."
The U.S.A., the home of
the Fluoridation Racket, forced 60 years community usage, held inquiries at
regular intervals, now in the hundreds, and spent millions of dollars
(people's money!) promoting fluoridation in "every" direction.
In spite of attempting to
get world usage, the U.S.A. can only boast a 50% success of fluoridation in
their own country, at such a cost in money, medical and dental reputations
and grand political machinations, all without scientific evidence of safety
for those force-fed such a crude unrefined fluoride medicine.
Seems possible
fluoridation has nothing to do with children's teeth!
Democracy and Law seem to have been dealt a
mortal legal blow all on behalf of fluoridation.
Strike Ten for Civil
Disobedience
Is it not a case of Civil
Disobedience against the community, the people, when in 1993 the
Victorian Government through the Parliament with NO DEBATE (Hansard),
altered the Victorian Constitution to protect their Compulsory Fluoridation
Act?
The Victorian
Constitution now reads:
"Prevents the Supreme Court of Victoria
from entertaining an action against fluoridation.”
That Government action to
protect Fluoridation draws attention to the Australian Constitution which
sets a requirement for cases to be accepted into The High Court of
Australia.
A case must first go
through the Supreme Court before presentation in the High Court.
Democracy and Law seem to
have been dealt a mortal legal blow all on behalf of fluoridation; an action
unequalled anywhere in the world!!!
When one enters the
fluoridation arena one finds it is a Big League business.
Strike Eleven for
Civil Disobedience
Is it not a case of Civil
Disobedience when the Government and the A.D.A. use the following, as
qualified fluoridation researchers, to influence politicians and the public
into believing these organisations have produced original scientific
research of a clinical nature on -fluoridation, published in world
scientific journals.
• the World Health Organisation
(WHO)
• the Australian Medical
Association (AMA)
• the Australian Dental
Association (ADA) and
• the Australian College of
General Practitioners
• the N.H. and M.R.C.
The picture is of
hundreds of white-coated scientists working on ORIGINAL scientific
fluoridation research. That is not true.
Indeed we have letters
from the A.M.A., A.D.A., stating they are not a research
organisation.
The N.H. and M.R.C.
cannot be taken seriously on fluoridation. They cannot show proof of its
safety to humans. (Correspondence)
The Australian College of
General Practitioners do not seem to have carried out fluoridation research
as we have no record of any such research by them into fluoridation or
articles published by them on the subject of fluoridation.
Strike Twelve for
Civil Disobedience
There seems no legal
justification for Governments to introduce conscription laws without proper
scientific evidence or Constitutional Referenda, which leaves the people so
targeted without recourse.
The Australian Defence
Department has a mandatory law, that all Defence personnel must drink only
fluoridated water in their Army Camps, Ships, Depots, RAAF Stations
etc.
After a long and tedious
job on our part questioning the Defence Department on this compulsory daily
drugging with fluoride, the final answer follows.
Fluoridation - an experimental dental
process
The Parliamentary
Secretary for Defence, Science and Personnel, the Hon. Ros Kelly M.P. wrote
17th September, 1987:
"In the Summary of Recommendations of the
statement, the Council (N.H. and M. R. C.) confirmed its previous
recommendations concerning the fluoridation of water as being a safe
and effective measure for the control of dental caries." (But no proof
given)
"The statement does not confirm or deny
any benefit to the adult dentition from fluoridated water;
nevertheless, references cited within it state that fluoridated water at the
recommended level is not a hazard to health." (No proof
given)
From the above we
consider it would be a brave or silly person claiming the N.H. and M.R.C.
have scientific proof that fluoridation has a benefit for adults.
(Defence Personnel)
Once again, this
Association confirms previous correspondence stating the N.H. and M.R.C.
together with the World Health Organisation continually make unsubstantiated
claims that fluoridation is safe but cannot show the necessary scientific
proof, documented in a scientific procedure.
Strike Thirteen for
Civil Disobedience
The Victorian Government
force the community to daily drug themselves with a crude quality fluoride
chemical claiming it stops tooth decay.
At the same time the same
Government in 1995 was providing dentists with large posters for displaying
outside dentists' rooms. (Australian Fluoridation News
1998).
Large coloured posters
supplied by the Department of Health seen outside dental rooms stating:
"THERE'S A BETTER WAY - SEAL YOUR
CHILDREN'S TEETH AGAINST DECAY."
Are Victorian people
expected to ignore sealants as PROPS for fluoridation, if "Sealants are a
better way to stop decay"?
There seems a serious
case against fluoridation, mass medication and the perpetrators of
human experimentation, that has continued over the past 60 years and still
without medical scientific proof of its safety and effectiveness.
From its very beginning
in U.S.A., 1945, fluoridation has been correctly titled an experimental
dental process.
After 60 years continuous
Governments' approval, indeed forced community daily drugging, committees in
many countries have investigated fluoridation, all claiming to pronounce
the final scientific conclusion. The only common factor has been to
recommend, "More research is needed".
Not one research group of
scientists has provided scientific evidence of fluoridation safety and
effectiveness.
That alone labels
fluoridation "a human experiment" because 60 years of "cover-up
investigations" on behalf of Governments (not on behalf of the people) has
produced zero scientific evidence to justify its use in public drinking
water supplies.
The original
fluoridation plants in the U.S.A. were described by their Government, as an
EXPERIMENT.
Australia's Government
top dental scientist, Dr. L. Carr, refers to fluoridation as "an experiment"
(A.D.A. Journal 1953).
Dr Philip R.N. Sutton,
D.D.Sc., F.R.A.C., D.S., Senior Research Fellow, Department of Oral Medicine
and Surgery, Dental School, University of Melbourne, published (1959) the
first book in the world on the original 1945 fluoridation experimental
plants, and the claims made to promote its use.
"Fluoridation: Errors and
Omissions in Experimental Trials." These fluoridation Experimental Trials
have continued. for 60 years, yet there has been unabated support for
compulsory fluoridation in Parliaments of U.S.A., U.K., Australia and New
Zealand.
"The voluntary consent of the human subject
is absolutely essential."
The Nuremburg Court
Oxford Dictionary
"Experiment -Test,
trial, procedure adopted or chance of it succeeding or for
testing."
The latter, "for
testing', is obvious but "the chance of succeeding" has failed after 60
years and billions of dollars wasted on this failed dental
concept.
There must be a benefit
for some? Nothing in the scientific world has ever before had 60 continuous
years of Government action to con the world that water fluoridation does all
of their propaganda claims.
The International Lobby
has been knocking on the scientific door for 60 years but never gained
entry, quite contrary to the political wide-open doors where
politicians welcome the rort.
Experimenting on
Humans (Fluoridation)
The Nuremberg Court 1949:
"The Nuremberg Code
(1) The voluntary consent of the human
subject is absolutely essential."
"This means that the person involved
should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be
able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any
element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching or other ulterior
form of constraint or coercion; and comprehension of the elements of the
subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and
enlightened decision." (Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg
Military Tribunals under Control Law 10, 1949).
A few of the Court's
summations explain any credibility to political right of experiment on
humans in the name of dentistry.
"A true scientist must be a moral and
honest man in the highest meaning of these words. The German scientists had
become immoral and dishonest, therefore their achievements were of a
pseudo-scientific character."
In discussion on criminal
liability for experiments performed on human subjects, the judgement lays
down ten (10) standards of which physicians must conform.
"Certain basic principles must be observed
in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts."
"THE VOLUNTARY CONSENT OF THE HUMAN SUBJECT
IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL."
Result of Nuremberg
Court:
"Those found guilty of experimenting on
human beings, were sentenced to death by hanging."
Whilst the Nuremberg
Court was in process, the U.S. Government was "experimenting on their
people" with the first ever artificial fluoridation plants, dispensing
fluoride into the homes in that particular community and, indeed, without
any prior knowledge on the matter, because those fluoridation plants were
the first in the world and were noted as "experiments".
In the U.S. Fluoridation
Report to Congress 1992, the following statements are of scientific
importance.
"Netherlands - Fluoridation discontinued in
1976 after 23 years experiments."
"West Germany - Fluoridation Discontinued
1978 after 18 years of experiments'.
Australia has been
EXPERIMENTING on its population for over 50 years despite being a signatory
to the Nuremberg Court findings.
Strike 14 for Civil
Disobedience
It must be accepted as a
serious offence against the population to daily force-feed, dose, drug,
everyone with an UNREGISTERED poisonous chemical, scientifically unproven as
safe for humans and universally banned through the Nuremberg court findings,
from experimenting on humans.
Conclusion
There is endemic covert
scientific corruption on the subject of artificial fluoridation of public
drinking water supplies at levels of Government, most Health Departments,
Dental and Medical Associations.
Copy List
|
