|
Copy List
Australia's new Advertising Code
During April 2000 the media
announced new rules "of truth" under the Australian Therapeutic Goods
Advertising Code. Solid evidence will be required before such products can
be advertised. Legality will possibly smother the meaning of advertising -
government, dental, medical, media statements, claiming fluoridation is
perfectly safe and effective is in fact an open case of advertising. The
Oxford Dictionary describes, "advertise - to notify, inform, make generally
known," and that is how fluoridation is promoted in the media, it is
advertised through media statements and editorials. The Code will demand (?)
al! advertising claims must be accompanied by evidence. Claims of
infallibility are banned, but the next qualification must worry fluoridation
pushers.
"Advertisements must
not mislead consumers lack of knowledge."
The Director of Proprietary
Medicines Association is reported as stating:
"The purpose of the
Code is to allow consumers to make appropriate decisions."
Sounds like democratic
freedom of choice, but seeing is believing.
"Consumers have got to
know products actually deliver."
"Australia's new Code
has consumers, industry, health care professionals and government working
or exploit together so medicines which are safe, of high quality and
efficacious can be effectively promoted."
"Brochures will be
available to instruct people how to make complaints about unscrupulous
health companies."
As the fluorides used in
fluoridating public drinking water supplies have never been proved safe
in any country of the world, it seems the advertising code has an
immediate problem all over Australia with not only a non-proven safety
process, but one foisted on the Australian public by Government compulsion.
We suggest you do not hold your breath!
Complaints will get the
usual scientific, medical drivel, all of which has been well documented in
the past. Fluoridation is mass medication ? its purpose is to cause a
physiological change in the human body, placing it in the category of
products qualifying under the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. The Code
must surely extend into University teaching, where fluoridation is a most
important segment of dental teaching, and unless it can be scientifically
and medically proven safe, the teaching should be cancelled accordingly as
per the new Code. Then we have the problem with fluoride toothpaste very
well advertised. Fluoride mouthwashes, fluoride gels etc. etc., but as
stated above, don't hold your breath, just read other information in this
issue of Australian Fluoridation News.
There is movement at the Station
The Declaration of
Helsinki, 1964 stated:
"Every patient has a
right to expect a complete and thorough examination into his condition and
that accurate records will be kept."
"Biomedical research
involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific
principles and should be based on adequately performed laboratory and
animal experimentation and on a thorough knowledge of the scientific
literature."
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency admits fluoridated drinking water may be harming millions
of at risk Americans.
In a 5 September 2000
letter from the U.S.E.P.A. responding to a U.S. House Committee on Science
Inquiry into the Safety of Artificial Fluoridation Drinking Water, Charles
Fox, U.S. E.P.A. Assistant Administrator, wrote:
'There are no water
quality criteria for fluoride, either for the protection of aquatic life
or for the protection of human health."
The E.P.A. spokesman stated
they were in the process of developing medical Fact Sheets for medical
practitioners (doctors, nurses, dieticians, etc.) with health information on
drinking water contaminants that can be used to counsel patients about
water-borne contaminants including fluoridation chemicals. He said
that the Fact Sheets will initially focus on the elderly, children and
pregnant women. However, the E.P.A. will later expand the information sheets
to cover other risk populations.
Existing data indicates
that sub-sets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the effects
of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people
with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and vitamin C, and people with
cardiovascular and kidney problems ... Poor nutrition increases the
incidence and severity of dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis. The E.P.A.
stated in their letter the "at risk populations" for exposure to fluorides
in drinking water are in the tens of millions of Americans.
-
55 years and older
population - 52,000,000
-
cardiovascular disease -
22,000,000
-
kidney (renal) disorders
- 2,000,000
-
vitamin C deficiency -
27% of the population
-
magnesium deficiency -
37% of the population
-
calcium deficiency - 44%
of the population
Assistant Administrator Fox
stated that in 1999 the E.FA. requested the National Toxicology Program to
conduct studies regarding the neurotoxicity of aluminium and fluoride in
drinking water, which had been observed in several earlier studies.
On 28th October, 2000
Assembly man John V. Kelly petitioned F.D.A. Commissioner Jane Henny to take
regulatory action against children's fluoride supplements. Kelly cited
recent studies including the cover story of July issue of the journal of the
American Dental Association which demonstrated that fluoride works
topically, not internally. It was clearly demonstrated that
children's fluoride supplements do not prevent dental caries, but do
contribute to dental fluorosis, which can range from mild white spots,
to severe mottling of the teeth.
THE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE
NOT F.D.A. APPROVED HAVE BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR 50 YEARS.
Kelly stated that the
only pre-1938 use of sodium fluoride his office could find in the records
was its use as an insecticide and rodenticide. (Rat poison). The F.D.A.
classifies children's fluoride supplements as "unapproved new drugs".
Thousands of pediatricians, dentists and parents are under the false, but
logical impression that these prescription products are approved by the
F.D.A. as being safe and effective. In his letter to F.D.A. Commissioner
Heaney, Kelly wrote:
"The manufacturers of
fluoride supplements have had 50 years to conduct clinical trials and
toxicology studies to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness and submit
them for F.D.A. approval."
"They have not done
so. 50 years is a long time, even for the F.D.A."
The never researched
fluoridation data misleading the public, mirrors Governments and
bureaucratic tactics used in their attempt to stop any complaints about
fluoridation. No manner in which way you dress a monkey, it always remains a
monkey. Fluoridationists today are attempting to further mislead the people
of their countries by stating that fluorides are nutrients. Question - Is
fluoride an essential nutrient for humans? No, no, no, no.
"No essential function
for fluoride has been proven for humans ? U.K. Department of Health 1994."
The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration does not list fluoride as an essential nutrient. (Department
of Health and Human Services 1990).
The Great Waste Disposal
Invention
The greatest commercial
waste disposal process ever invented, by non-scientific dental and medical
and political minds, is the invention of turning garbage into gold, also
turning white teeth into mottled stained teeth, a problem that
profluoridation people admit, that fluoride causes the "cosmetic" problem,
but it is of "no importance", except if you are one of the 48% so harmed or
suffer medical or other physiological damage to the human body. That would
wreck the invention. Everyone knows politicians sleep well in Parliament,
but one wonders how they can sleep well at night with this evidence on their
minds. The time is well passed when our people, living under the deception
of a democratic country, commence taking an interest in the direction we are
heading. You really do have a responsibility to do your bit, not only for
yourself, your family, but importantly for the country in which you live,
and which we hope you love. A quiet moment contemplating the comparative
quality of your country should stir most people. Do not agree to continue
being a walking human waste disposal unit for foreign fertiliser factories.
U.S.A. communities vote
against fluoridation
Dreadful things happened in
the U.S.A. November, 2000. The new President will be faced with the news
that on the same day of the Election, the people of 13 U.S. communities
voted against fluoridation. This in spite of heavy grants to the fluoride
lobby for their campaigns "against the people". "Strange", that no group
fighting daily fluoride drugging receive similar grants for an American
Democratic Poll, or is there a specially planned separation between
fluoridation and democracy, honesty, tax-payers' money, and a controlled
media that gives a relatively poor amount of time and space to any group
against fluoridation? There is an obvious answer:
"Fear, Fear, Fear,
Fear, of real science by real scientists."
Fluoridation must continue
and indeed increase, at all costs, monetary and health. The finance is evil
enough, but to force-feed communities by Laws of Compulsion is the evil
limit of political dictatorship, especially in "the Land of the Free", when
the fluoride dose is unknown and not proved safe. They "theatre" political
Human Rights Action against other countries, but turn a blind eye to their
own Human Rights. Deputations from crude dictatorship countries will one day
be seen visiting the U.S.A., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, scathingly
critical relative to Human Rights and compulsory daily mass medication with
unproven drugs, served through the kitchen taps as "the Government toxic
shandy".
The U.S.A., home of
fluoridation and its Government, is hell-bent on having their whole country
drinking fluoridated water for no other reason than to help the Florida
Fertilizer Industry rid their factories of the chimney pollutant scrubber
fluoride waste toxic material, economically turning poisonous fluoride
pollutants into money. History will show this as America's 2000 New World
Order of Economy and Health, a Political and Professional disreputable
action of immoral health standards in government and those "elected" names
cast in concrete; but who cares, they will have "done well" representing the
people! The question facing not only U.S.A. but the world in general,
following the U.S.A. health standards, is whether fluoride in drinking water
is a noticeable health benefit. Where does the U.S.A. fit into World
Health Records with the great common denominator fluoridated water? The
following was printed in the American Medical Association Journal, July
2000:
"Is US Health Really the
Best in the World?"
"The fact is that the U.S.
population does not have anywhere near the best health in the world. Of 13
countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th
(second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. Countries in
order of their average ranking on the health indicators (with the first
being the best) are Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Australia, Spain,
Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium, the United
States, and Germany. Rankings of the United States on the separate
indicators are:
-
13th (last) for
low-birth-weight percentages
-
13th for neonatal
mortality and infant mortality overall
-
11th for postneonatal
mortality
-
13th for years of
potential life lost (excluding external causes)
-
11th for life expectancy
at 1 year for females, 12th for males
-
10th for life expectancy
at 15 years for females, 12th for males
-
10th for life expectancy
at 40 years for females, 9th for males
-
7th for life expectancy
at 65 years for females, 7th for males
-
3rd for life expectancy
at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
-
10th for age-adjusted
mortality.
The health care system also
may contribute to poor health through its adverse effects. For example, U.S.
estimates of the combined effect of errors and adverse effects that occur
because of iatrogenic* damage not associated with recognisable error
include:
-
12,000 deaths/year from
unnecessary surgery
-
7,000 deaths/year from
medication errors in hospitals
-
20,000 deaths/year from
other errors in hospitals
-
80,000 deaths/year from
nosocomial** infections in hospitals
-
106,000 deaths/year from
nonerror, adverse effects of medications.
These total to 225,000
deaths per year from iatrogenic causes. Three caveats should be noted.
First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalised patients.
Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include adverse
effects that are associated with disability or discomfort. Third, the
estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the 10M report. If
the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would
range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year
constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after
deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are
overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and
the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease)."
This is a message from the
American Medical Association Journal - no wonder fluoridation is of no
health concern! One part of the U.S.A., Hawaii, voted against fluoridation
(again) "14 to 2 against", April 2000. The real heads of U.S. Government
never take "no" as a fluoridation answer - Previous Hawaii fluoridation
defeats - 1969, 1972, 1974, 1987 and now 2000. Democracy has no place in
fluoridation.
*Any abnormal mental or
physical condition resulting from medical treatment.
** Knowledge of disease.
Copy List
|
