|
Copy List
FLUORIDATION
A PRODUCT OF COMMERCIAL
PROFITABILITY
(Stranger than Fiction)
By Glen S.R. Walker
Fluoridation is a figment of dentistry
imagination, the grasping of anything to promote fluoridation as a
professionally proven wonder, but without scientific evidence to support
this imaginary science.
Fluoridation is the modern medical and
political fantasy of alchemy, the turning of a garbage poisonous fluoride
pollutant, into gold.
Never at any time and nowhere in the world
has it been proven that fluoridation improves children's teeth without
additional huge dental services, parental influence on cleaning of
children's teeth, and importantly political contrivance rather than
representation of those who voted them into their privileged and responsible
positions of community trust in Parliament.
Commonsense clearly indicates the
ridiculous and indeed dangerous situation when Parliaments (politicians) are
so unanimously dedicated to compulsory medication with artificial
fluoridation, a "Government Health Concept" without any scientific
foundation or scientific basis, making its promotion a questionable act of
community parliamentary Constitutional correctness.
LOGIC IGNORED
Logic, the political unused method
of reasonable investigation and appraisal is ignored whenever fluoridation
is mentioned. Their "cleverness" is so transparent, one wonders how "their"
scientific nonsense gains such prominence in a Parliament, that supposedly
democratically represents the people and their Constitutional wish.
Consider their LOGIC, (Oxford
Dictionary - 'not contravening, capable of correct reasoning, proof".)
together with Medical and Dental Organisations.
After 60 years forcing people to daily drug
themselves with fluoride, the promoters cannot produce scientific evidence
of fluoridation safety and effectiveness.
LOGIC. The chemical sodium silicofluoride
pumped into every home in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Darwin
and Canberra, is NOT REGISTERED as a safe chemical to daily medicate humans.
(U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. E.PA., Report to U.S. Congress
2001).
Under normal legal and indeed moral laws
the above should prohibit fluoridation.
The question must be answered as to why
that particular poisonous fluoride pollutant, collected in exhaust chimneys
of fertiliser factories, too toxic to emit into the atmosphere, is bested in
a legal, some say illegal, manner through Australian Parliaments (and other
countries) to add to drinking water supplies, when its scientific claims are
baseless, resulting in zero scientific and moral credibility.
Why is a poisonous
pollutant, too toxic to admit into the atmosphere, legally protected to add
to water supplies?
Returning to LOGIC - if fluoridation, 60
years of compulsory daily medication, with daily fluoride dose, claimed by
the "Famous Three" Political, Medical, Dental, as safe and effective, proven
by medical scientific research was effective, one could expect the world's
population would be screaming mad, for this grand fluoridation elixir in
their drinking water.
That has NEVER happened. FACT, 96%
of world population do not use fluoridation, perhaps more meaningful is that
only 4% of the world population use artificial fluoridation and most by
their Governments' Acts of Compulsion, never by public demand.
Ask your politician to name any other
Government Controlled Drugs they recommend on a 4% compulsory world usage
and UNREGISTERED! If they say no, then you are entitled to consider
fluoridation is not really for children's teeth and the real benefits are
hidden.
European countries avoid fluoridation
The scientifically advanced European
countries do not use fluoridation, indeed 98% of European population do not
indulge in the fluoride fantasy by daily drugging their people with an
UNREGISTERED medicine, fluoride.
The following countries do not daily
drug their people with fluoride chemicals through the kitchen tap.
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 %. (C.R.S. Report to Congress 1992.)
The U.S.A. is the home of the Fluoridation
Racket with 60 years of forced usage and hundreds of inquiries at regular
intervals, spending 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 50% success in the U.S.A. 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 fluoride
medicine.
Seems possible that fluoridation has
nothing to do with children's teeth!
In the U.S. Fluoridation Report to Congress
1992 the following statements are of significant scientific importance.
"Netherlands Fluoridation Discontinued
in 1976 after 23 years of experiments."
"West Germany Fluoridation
discontinued in 1978 after 18 years of experiments."
Medical experimentation on humans
The U.S. Government therefore admitted in
1992 that fluoridation is a process of medical experimentation on humans,
such processes declared illegal in 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."
"The voluntary consent
of the human subject is absolutely essential."
The Nuremberg Code
(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 and compulsory fluoridation.
"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
pseudoscientific character."
In discussing 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."
"Those found guilty of
experimenting on human beings, were sentenced to death by hanging."
Results of Nuremberg
Court
Result of Nuremberg Court:
"Those found guilty of experimenting
on human beings, were sentenced to death by hanging."
LOGIC and TRUTH
Experimenting on humans (that's you)
is a serious offence against humanity. The reality and processing is in
the hands of those responsible for allowing human experiments,
"fluoridation" ; and at the same time upholding HONEST LAW!!!
A convoluted question of Human Law and
responsibility on your behalf.
Australian Law
The Nuremberg International Law is patently
clear, however there is another Law just as important.
The Australian Constitution proclaims
without equivocation, there must be no dental or medical CONSCRIPTION.
(Australian Constitution, (51, xxiiiA)). "Medical and dental services (but
not so as to authorise any form of conscription)."
The Conscription Medicine - "drug" sodium
silicofluoride, is described by the World Health Organisation in their
publication, "The Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to
Humans":
"Sodium Silicofluoride:
USE:- as an insecticide, fungicide,
bactericide, mothproofing agent, a pediculicide, and poison.
The heading to this article "Stranger than
fiction", could not be more aptly titled when you consider that 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".
Dr. P.R.N. Sutton D.D.Sc. Melbourne
University, published a book "Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in
Experimental Trials" 1959.
No claim has ever been made suggesting his
statements of Experimental Trials were not correct. His 1996
publication "The Greatest Fraud, Fluoridation" contains a reprint of his
1959 book.
There seems no doubt that fluoridation is
experimentation on humans and qualifies as an abuse of power under the
Nuremberg Court decisions adopted by Australia and all other
developed countries including the U.S.A.
The Australian Dental Journal 1953 printed
an article by Dr. L.M. Carr under the title - "Some Considerations Prior to
Experimental Fluoridation".
He stated (p. 209):
"This paper has been written in an
endeavour to present briefly several problems which should be considered
before experimental fluoridation is undertaken in any locality."
Dr. L. Carr was senior advisor on dentistry
to the Australian Government.
There is no reasonable
doubt that fluoridation is an experiment on humans.
There is no reasonable doubt that
artificial fluoridation is an experiment on humans.
Do you need more proof?
Before any positive medical position is
scientifically adopted, there must be absolute proof, however this situation
has never been attained in fluoridation, and the pseudoscience
presented, is 60 years of strange research, these research groups never
finding positive scientific answers, but always recommending more
research on a health matter they say is absolutely safe but cannot prove a
word of their claim.
Legal protection for human medical
experimentation
If your politician, medical and
pharmacologists, and dentists really understand and truly believe
fluoridation is safe and effective, why do they support the never before
thought of action to protect this failed medical concept, by changing the
Victorian Constitution that now prohibits the Supreme Court of Victoria from
"entertaining cases against fluoridation"? Health democracy the
Australian way!
The Victorian
Constitution now prohibits the Supreme Court of Victoria from "entertaining
cases against fluoridation."
Australian Health
"democracy".
The extreme actions of protecting
fluoridation have no limits. Tasmania, the longest fluoridated State !n
Australia, passed a Bill through their Parliament, 1995, prohibiting public
meetings discussing fluoridation. It was suggested 3 or more people
constituted a public meeting.
Fortunately, this utterly dangerous
nonsense was cancelled in the Upper House. But the situation is clear -
Fluoride is the protected poison and the public want to know why? Who really
benefits from fluoridation? An answer would be classified defamatory!
This all smacks of "questionable" political
correctness, democracy, honest Government and the representation of the
people by politicians voted into privileged and scrupulous responsible
positions of trust.
The sad fact is that you will read this
data but do nothing!!
You could write to your newspaper, go on
Radio Talk-Back, see your politician and even write to your Minister for
Health, State and Federal, and demand an answer.
It is your democratic right to agree or
disagree with this data. If you agree, consider the responsibility to your
family, friends, and the community in general.
If you disagree, please send your
scientific objections and if properly scientifically supported, we will
publish it accordingly. This is not the first time we have offered
scientific criticism of our articles opposing compulsory fluoridation, but
after over 30 years of Australian Fluoridation News (Aqua Pura), the next
one will be the first.
Copy List
|
