|
Copy List
FLUORIDATION SCIENCE THE A.M.A. WAY
The great network of those, so deeply
involved in fluoridation promotion and belief, generally ignorant of whom
they are really supporting, do know fluoridation is wrong at every level of
democracy, the Constitution, science, medicine, pharmacology, and above
everything else, politicians of every persuasion.
Fluoridation is the mystic myth, governing
the minds of people, who otherwise would be regarded as normal rational
beings.
The fluoridation myth is a contagious
disease of the mind, a myth capable of showing white is black without proof,
and with hungry "coodabeens" attempting to fit into the fluoride sorcerers
jig-saw puzzle of wealthy fake chemistry.
The original myth is live and well, thanks
to your "elected" politician, even with today's world-wide evidence of
galloping mottled teeth, dental fluorosis, poisoned by fluoride.
Thirty years ago, mottling of children's
teeth was a wellknown, documented problem, but the cause kept away from
critical gaze of the world population by an unhealthy state of honesty in
government Parliaments.
The National Fluoridation News - 1968,
presented the public ridicule of Expert Fluoridation scientific minds at
work.
During 1957 the A.M.A. were well aware of
the fluoridation health danger.
In the A.M.A. Official Report on
Fluoridation 1957 they documented:
"The only difficulty so far recalled
(after only the 6 years of experimenting on humans) is a possible increase
in mottling of the tooth enamel."
However, there is more!
These A.M.A. Scientific Experts, in their
Report stated:
"Physiological effect of water
containing 1.0 ppm total fluoride in ionic form will vary almost
unpredictably from individual to individual, depending primarily at the
following variables: the nature and concentrations of other ions present,
the extent to which the fluoride present as free fluoride ion and complex
ions; the need of the body for some of the other ions present in the
water."
These early fluoride blinkered A.M.A.
scientists, unwittingly exposed their fluoridation Achilles Heel in their
pseudo-science Report on fluoridation, everything contrary to sound
pharmacology and indeed simple pharmaceutical practice between a doctor's
prescription and a correct medical dose.
The old fluoride scientific gobbledegook is
current even today!
The A.M.A. Report stated:
"Reports have been published or have
otherwise been made available to the Councils of patients with symptoms
and signs that were attributed to the ingestion of fluoridated water; " to
us, these reports fail to demonstrate enough consistency to justify
impartial acceptance as showing a symptom complex due to fluoridated
water."
"(17) Waldbott, G.L.: Incipient
Fluorine Intoxication from Drinking Water, Acta med. scandinav.
156:157168, 1956; Incipient Chronic Fluoride Intoxication from Drinking
Water: II Distinction Between Allergic Reactions and Drug Intolerance,
Internat. Arch. Allergy 9:241-249, 1956; Chronic Fluorine Intoxication
from Drinking Water, ibid. 7:69-74, 1955; Tetaniform Convulsions
Precipitated by Fluoridated Drinking Water (Case Report), Unpublished
data. Footnote 10."
Following the above official classical
medical statement, the A.M.A. endorsed fluoridation in their keen desire to
promote an unproven suspect health community prescription (dose) usually by
compulsion (conscription), all completely contrary to the A.M.A. Charter.
They failed to understand and follow their own propaganda.
Throughout the A.M.A. Official Report on
Fluoridation they attempted to convey an absolute "safety factor" for human
health with daily consumption of fluoridated drinking water supplies and
daily doses, even though the first experiment on humans was only of 12 years
duration, a matter that cannot be medically extrapolated into full adult
human lives.
However, they cannot be accused of
pharmaceutical ignorance. They actually explained their own scientific (sic)
fault in the long Official Report of scientific evidence of fluoridation.
For over 30 years the Australian
Anti-Fluoridation Associations have pounded Government Departments,
Ministers of Health, Prime Ministers, State Premiers, Health Departments not
forgetting the classical media with their platform, "Freedom of Speech".
We have challenged the above scientific,
medical, dental and pharmaceutical groups in Australia that their primary
claim of a scientifically centralised medical dose of fluoride from
fluoridation is definitely and scientifically controlled by the carefully
(sic) controlled addition of 1 ppm fluoride in the water at the reservoir.
That is today's scientific claim by those
selling the false basis of fluoridation.
Here is what the A.M.A. documented as the
truth in 1957 but then ignored their own honest data.
"Ideally the measurement of fluoride
ingestion, particularly in the determination of the amount that can be
taken without harm, would be based on the total amount of fluoride taken
per day, not merely on the number of parts per million in the liquid or
food consumed. This would take into consideration the fact that the
intakes of different people with different habits and under different
temperature conditions may vary widely. The difficulty in following such
suggestion is that it is practically impossible to measure the
fluid-fluoride or food-fluoride intake of large enough groups of people
over long enough periods of time to secure sufficient data to show safe
limits.
Read that 1957 A.M.A. declaration of a
safe, well controlled dose but change the word "difficulty" insert
"impossibility" and you have a more exacting meaning.
Specialising doctors, representing the
American Medical Association, must have had "exceptional" reasons to promote
fluoridation, knowing the fluoride dose from fluoridation is unknown,
uncontrolled, uncontrollable, and absolutely unscientific.
Perhaps it is all translated in Proverbs
16:16 -
"How much better is it to get wisdom
than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver."
The A.M.A. seem to be backing themselves
"each way", they document the danger of fluoridation but promote it so not
to cause "discord" between the A.M.A. and the U.S. Public Health Service,
which is the original promoter of fluoridation and concurrently responsible
for gift-wrapped grants.
The A.M.A. Report:
"Among those who have studied the
problem most thoroughly and judiciously, it is generally held that the
most delicate criterion of harm from fluoride ingestion is the group of
changes occurring in the appearance of the permanent teeth. Mottled
enamel can occur when sufficient fluoride has been ingested
continuously by children from birth to about ten years of age. Likewise,
and as noted previously, diminution of caries can be taken as the most
delicate and definite criterion o; benefit from continuous ingestion of
fluoride by children of this age group.
Except for the occurrence of
mottled enamel, and of the moderate increase in bone density in
a small percentage of individuals after prolonged exposure, such studies
have failed to show deleterious effects of living in a community in the
United States with a high fluoride content in the water supply."
Prolonged Exposure?
Artificial fluoridation experiments in
humans, using polluting toxic waste by-products, industrial crude quality
fluoride chemicals, at that time had a total of 12 years experimentation on
humans, which is clearly a huge scientific exaggeration of a medical
equation of "Prolonged exposure", especially for a cumulative poison.
The long established exaggeration of
fluoridation claims is the important proven fact associated with
fluoridation promoters. As the years pass, the same old fluoridation
cover-up exists.
The U.S. National Research Council 1993 in
their Executive Summary on Fluoridation stated:
"The sub-committee recommends
additional research to improve the current data base" ;
and the Australian National Health and
Medical Research Council 1991 stated:
"It is necessary to establish a much
more detailed and higher-quality data base ... for the evaluation of the
effectiveness of future dental health."
But the N.H. and M.R.C. recommend
fluoridation as safe and effective despite "the current dearth of an
adequate evaluative Australian database"!
The U.K. scientists put fluoridation in a
different scientific medical manner.
In their Central Health Services Council
Report to the Government on fluoridation, printed 1956 this is documented:
"Apart from mottling of the teeth, the
effects of high grade fluorosis appears to be almost confined to the
skeleton. "
Mottling of teeth and skeleton fluorosis
seem of little importance to that group of Fluoridation Experts. They
recommended artificial fluoridation!
They stated (p.15):
"Their conclusion is that despite many
years of observation and investigation, there is no scientific or medical
evidence available which suggests that there is any risk in drinking water
containing fluoride in that concentration (1 ppm F)."
All that medical scientific conclusion
after only 10 years of artificial fluoridation experimentation plants in
U.S.A. and their knowledge that fluoride causes mottled teeth and
skeleton fluorosis!
During 1952 the U.S. "Select Committee
Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics" submitted their
Report to the Government House of Representatives - 82 Congress 1952. In
their opening remarks the Committee stated:
"Since water is a food, the
Committee's views on the fluoridation of public drinking water could have
been included in the food report. In view of the importance of the
subject, however, the Committee decided to consider it separately.
Your Committee, therefore, now
respectfully submits its fourth and final report entitled, 'Fluoridation
of Public Drinking Water'."
Discussion
"However, no studies have been
published concerning the effect or disposition of fluorine if ingested by
persons with impaired kidneys. Nor does it appear that any long term
controlled studies have been conducted to determine the precise effect of
fluorine upon the soft tissues."
We are learning more about the effects
of fluorine every day.
Another problem to be considered is
the mottling of teeth sometimes caused by fluoride."
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Surgeon General of the United
States Public Health Service testified before the committee as follows, on
the problems created by the ever-increasing utilisation of chemicals in
our food supply.
"The contamination of air, water, food
and milk with chemicals and the resultant effect on health is of concern
to the Public Health Service. The rapidity with which new compounds are
being introduced in the production, processing, storage, packaging and
distribution of foods is alarming, particularly in view of the fact
that the toxic effects of so many of these chemicals and the compounds
which they form when introduced into the food are unknown. Because of
the fact that many individuals in the United States are exposed each day
to these potential hazards, the Public Health Service wholeheartedly
endorses the study which this committee is undertaking."
Several important statements in that Report
are worthy of consideration:
(1) Water is a food. (But not in
Australia)
(2) Mottling of teeth, a problem
1952.
(3) Claims of fluoridation safety.
(4) Admittance that no studies on
safety.
(5) Admit the health hazard of
fluoridation "will result from cumulative long period of time."
(6) The original 1945, 10 year
fluoridation experiment, at Grand Rapids, was presented as "factual proof"
but was followed by:
"But the official report of the
Newburgh-Kingston study, published in Tune 1950 stated (5 years after
commencement):
"The results thus far in the study
have disclosed no deleterious systemic effects from the ingestion of
fluoride in drinking water in the dosage employed. It must be
emphasised, however, that a longer period of observation is required
before final conclusions can be drawn. The possibility of demonstrating
cumulative effects of fluoride in the final years of the 10-year study
cannot be eliminated at this time."
(7) Conclusion
"In the opinion of your committee, the
fluoridation of public drinking water of a significant portion of the
population of the Nation is an integral part of the problem adverted to by
the Surgeon General. Water is consumed by every person in a community,
regardless of his age, physical condition, or possible personal reactions.
It is essential, therefore, that all the facts concerning fluoridation be
disseminated, and an opportunity given to the people of each community to
decide for themselves whether they desire to assume, at this time, the
calculated risk inherent in the program.
The committee is of the view that a
sufficient number of unanswered questions concerning the safety of this
program exists as to warrant a conservative attitude."
It concludes with the following teasing
democratic principle, jettisoned by U.S. politicians since that time, and
indeed in Australia.
"The advisability of fluoridating the
public water supply of the Nation is essentially a local problem, to be
determined for itself by each community."
In Australia we agree with that final
conclusion, a principle of real democracy, compared with Australia's
Compulsory Fluoridation Acts of Parliament, "Political Behaviour"
introducing draconian, totalitarian, despotic Acts of Parliament, contrary
to The Australian Constitution and International Human Rights Conventions
signed by Australia.
In 1955 the U.K. Central Health Services
Council published their Report on Fluoridation. (Ordered by the House of
Commons to be printed 1956).
That report was 10 years after the first
experiment in Artificial Fluoridation, Grand Rapids U.S.A.
The U.K. Health Services stated:
"Apart from mottling of the teeth,
the effects of high grade fluorosis appear to be almost confined to the
skeleton. "
"There is no scientific evidence at
all indicating any toxic effects, other than the very mild effects
on the teeth." (Emphasis added)
That is a fine example of "double talk" so
popular these days of fluoridation promotion, a new kind of scientific
documentation to confuse the issue by fluoride flummoxed science. They seem
to believe the fluoride fairytales.
One moment fluoridation is toxic not only
to the skeleton but also the teeth, but the general opinion of the
self-pronounced scientists is that fluoridation is completely safe.
Under Possible Toxic Effects the Expert
Committee stated:
"It is sometimes suggested that the
fluoride which is added to water supplies is not the same as that
occurring naturally. Apart from the fact that the active particle is the
fluoride ion, which is the same from any source, all "artificial"
fluorides are prepared from naturally occurring minerals."
That "scientific statement" highlights the
power behind the printed knowledge of the august Committee responsible for
such claims.
As a final endorsement, without any
scientific proof these people state:
"We have already recorded the evidence
of the spectacular results of fluoridation as a preventive health measure
and 'our view (with rose tinted glasses) that there are no medical risks."
(After a 10 year suspect
experiment on U.S. people)
Editor's comments in parenthesis.
Since that day in 1955 there is evidence
that such proof is not medically accepted or indeed available, but they did
their job and established a foundation for unproven fluoridation in the U.K.
The standard world fluoride lobby
promotion.
Copy List
|
