|
Copy List
THE FLUORIDATION SCIENTIFIC
FRAUDSTERS
The fraudsters with their intentionally acquired
fluoridation evidence, accepted by politicians without question, join the
fraudsters in scientific misinformation and the strangulation of democracy
and honest science.
Early History of Fluoridation Promotion U.S.A.
Back in 1951, The Fourth Annual Conference was held of
Dental Directors, with the Public Health Service (PHS), the Children’s
Bureau, June 6-8, 1951, Federal Security Building, Washington D.C. The
minutes of their Conference were printed and available from the
Congressional Library.
Examples of their Scientific approach to fluoridation are
exemplified in the following few statements:
“One thing that is a little hard to handle is the
charge that fluoridation is not needed. They talk of other methods, and
when they get through adding up all the percentages of decay that we can
reduce by such methods, we end up in a minus. When they take us at our own
word they make awful liars out of us. And that will be brought up.
“Now, in regard to toxicity - I noticed that Dr Bain
used the term “adding sodium fluoride”. We never do that. That is rat
poison. You add fluorides.
“But this toxicity question is a difficult one. I can’t
give you the answer on it.
“Now, why should we do a pre-fluoridation survey? Is it
to find out if fluoridation works? No. We have told the public it works,
so we can’t go back on that. Then why do we want a pre-fluoridation
survey?
“... let me tell you this: The medical audience is the
easiest audience in the world to present this thing to. They are used to
carrying on public health activities. This worry about toxicity doesn’t
mean much to them because of all the human experience we have had.
“Now let’s get into a couple of don’ts. We have had a
little experience on some things to avoid. Don’t use the word
“artificial”, and don’t use sodium fluoride. You don’t know what a
community is going to end up using as its fluoriding agent. But don’t let
them raise the question of rat poison if you can help it. And certainly
don’t use the word “experimental”.
“If it is a fact that some individuals are against
fluoridation, you have just got to knock their objections down. The
question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it altogether. Just
pass it over. ‘We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing
tooth decay,’ you say, and go on. If it becomes an issue, then you will
have to take it over, but don’t bring it up yourself.
“If you can - I say if you can, because five times we
have not been able to do it - keep fluoridation from going to a
referendum.
“DR. BULL: I tell you, it is all right to talk about
not being concerned with them. Nevertheless, this all brings out one
thing. We are living down some past history a lot of us helped create.
These fellows can just take the statements of the American Dental
Association or the U.S. Public Health Service or the deans of dental
schools or research workers around the country, and they can prove to you
that we are absolutely crazy for even thinking about fluoridation. You are
going to have to live that down. There is no way of avoiding it.
“As far as the research workers are concerned, I
suppose fluoridation will always be an experiment, at least during our
lifetimes. Maybe that is just as well. But there has to be a time, you
know, when the research fits into common sense.”
The above has been perpetuated for 50 years of
commercialism in place of science, adopted by the pushers of the fluoride
drug.
The evidence of dental health without fluoridation is
ignored in favour of the above “standard of dental science”, questioning who
is the real beneficiary from fluoridation.
Consider the whole of Europe and its important
scientifically advanced countries, all rejecting fluoridation, at the same
time experiencing good dental health as compared with any fluoridated area
in the world.
Better Dental Health Without Fluoridation
Sydney N.S.W., 1960, was not fluoridated, and a study was
conducted in 1978 to examine the condition of children’s teeth in Northern
Sydney.
The Medical Journal of Australia, 11th February, 1978
published the results under the heading - “The Dental Health Revolution in
N.S.W.”.
The data presented by the A.M.A. Journal when examined,
found the improvement started before fluoridation and the rate of
improvement continued from 0-68% before fluoridation. Fluoridation commenced
during 1968 after which the rate of improvement almost faded out, indeed
after 4 years of fluoridation the improvement rate changed from 7.5 per cent
to 0.5%. (Fluoridation Poison on Tap)
More Evidence
A study was published by the Dental Therapy Programme,
Durri Aboriginal Medical Service, Kempsey, N.S.W. - Dental Health Status of
Aboriginal Children, Macleay Valley N.S.W., 1990-1994.
The water at the Macleay Valley Centre is NOT
fluoridated.
During the 4 years under consideration the reduction of
dental decay was 38%.
Hopewood House
The story of children at Hopewood House, Bowral, N.S.W.
is well documented in the book, A Gift of Love, a history of Leslie Owen
Bailey and his Hopewood House children.
In 1944, Leslie Bailey wrote:
“In the course of a few years, when we were able to
demonstrate about a hundred children with sound teeth and health records
well above average, we will be in a position to encourage others to pay
more attention to our child welfare methods.
“The water was drawn from the town supply. This water
has been examined (Jones 1949) for the presence of fluoride but none was
found.”
The Australian Medical Journal, 20th February, 1960
attested that after 10 year examination period, the Hopewood children
continued to show “remarkable freedom from dental caries”.
On page 184 of the Medical Journal they Report:
“It is therefore little short of miraculous that this
State of New South Wales, in which the above mentioned survey was made,
should have within its borders a group of children aged 9 to 16 years who
are relatively free from dental decay. The obvious question is: Why are
they so different in this respect?”
Did Doctors, Dentists, Politicians learn anything from
this example of how to stop tooth decay? NO!!!
Did the Government, A.D.A., A.M.A. learn anything? NO!
The Brisbane Task Force 1997
The Council of Brisbane, Capital of the State of
Queensland, appointed a Task Force in 1996 to investigate fluoridation
claims and recommend whether or not to fluoridate Brisbane Water Supply.
The Task Force of 17 members was heavily loaded with pro-fluoridationists,
A.D.A., A.M.A., Health Departments, University Medical School, City
Councils. The balance was about 14 to 3 in favour of fluoridation at the
beginning of their Research.
The Lord Mayor of Brisbane reported the Task Force
conclusions (November 1997):
“Extensive public consultation was undertaken to ensure
that the general public views on fluoridation were taken into account.”
“Throughout this six month process the representatives
of the community listened to the experts argue the case.
“These community representatives came down clearly
against the fluoridation of Brisbane water at this time.” (Signed Jim
Soorley, Lord Mayor).
The Task Force Report (180 pages) stated:
“The evidence relating to what constituted a safe or a
toxic dose of fluoride was uncertain and confusing. A majority of Task
Force members were concerned that the margin of safety between a safe and
toxic dose may not be sufficiently wide.” (P.89)
“Research evidence showed the complexity to separately
identify the benefits of fluoridation alone, as illustrated by the recent
comparison study of children in Brisbane and Townsville (University of
Adelaide).”
“Dental decay rates (DMFT for 12 year olds) amongst
children in Queensland (1.37 in 1995) appear to be similar to the
Australian average (1.01 in 1995) as illustrated in the tables below.”
(P. 88)
The Freedom From Fluoridation Federation of Australia
submitted a number of submissions. One of our particular papers showed the
unscientific and erroneous statistical presentation from Adelaide University
Dental School comparing unfluoridated Brisbane children’s teeth with those
of fluoridated Townsville.
These two cities are not comparable even in population.
Brisbane 1,000,000, Townsville 90,000.
Their dental submission concluded by showing the real
difference (using their data) of 12 year olds was only 0.25 of a tooth
(1/4).
Fortunately, the Task Force understood.
Brisbane is the only Australian Capital City not
fluoridated, and their children’s teeth are equal, sometimes better than
other fluoridated capital cities of Australia.
Did the Governments, their Politicians, the A.D.A., A.M.A.
University Dental Schools learn anything? No. A quiet reception.
A Slight Change - Product Quality Control
U.S. politicians are introducing a Fluoride Product
Quality Control Act, calling for testing of actual products used to
fluoridate drinking water supplies in the U.S.A.
Those following the Act were shocked to learn that
despite over 50 years fluoridation use and debate, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency admitted, “they have absolutely no studies on either the
safety or effectiveness of the actual fluoride chemicals used in the
Nation’s fluoridation process.”
This is a long time (50 years) for Government permission
and persuasion to add a known toxic pollutant to drinking water without any
research, documented in the very Government Agency responsible for such
population health protection.
The Fluoride Product Quality Control Act requires
substances used to fluoridate drinking water supplies to:
(1) “have been reviewed and approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) as safe and effective for the purpose for which
they are added to drinking water supplies,
(2) have been tested to assure that any complex
combination of elements making up the fluoridation substance dissociates
into harmless components when introduced into actual conditions found in the
end use tap water.
(3) have not been classified as a pesticide or hazardous
waste.”
The World Health Organization classifies the fluoride
chemical used in world fluoridation plants as a PESTICIDE. (W.H.O.
Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk for Humans 1981).
Containers used to transport these fluoride chemicals
print on the containers - HAZARDOUS - POISON.
Most chemical Index show these same fluoride chemicals as
“a pesticide for use on cattle and lice on poultry, as an insecticide
particularly for roaches and ants, round worms in swine.” (Merks Index)
Fluoride chemicals used world wide to fluoridate drinking
water supplies are waste by-product pollutants from fertiliser factories
producing superphosphate.
Studies in official U.S. Government agencies have found
these fluoride chemicals also contain lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, also
“RADON a daughter product of uranium - serious decay, remaining a major
environment problem.” (The Economic and Industrial Minerals of Florida 1997,
The Geology of florida, Australian Fluoridation News, Vol. 37-1 2001).
Recent scientific concerns about a combination of
aluminium and fluoride have landed on deaf ears in Australia where aluminium
sulphate is commonly used in fluoridated water supplies.
Scientific honesty is like a beacon, in the dark dental
propaganda and the commercial basis of medical pharmacology and political
practice.
The fluoride lobby do not recognise the rules of science
but give preference to commercialism and the mighty dollar.
Today the sad reality is that the basic cause of any
health problem, including teeth, is quite secondary to the wealth involved
in ever-lasting treatments as investigation of causes is commercially
unattractive. There is no money in healthy people.
The “trust us syndrome” used and applied by professionals
and politicians trained as superior men and women, “the guardians of the
people”, must not be questioned for explanation or proof by ordinary people
- just “trust us”.
When man rids himself of dental, political and medical
myths, changes in all health matters will be experienced, and when properly
implemented, less Doctors and Dentists and hospitals and improved health,
but maybe no change in the political agenda.
When the fluoride propaganda is examined honestly, it
will establish that dental decay, as they now call dental caries, has not
been cured by fluoridation.
Over 50 years of Government, Dental and Medical
statements, their claims have provided baseless “scientific” information, of
a commercial practice and no value to human health.
If their claims were even “almost correct”, by now there
would be no dentists, no dental decay, no false teeth, and perfect smiles
accordingly.
However, the opposite is reality - now, after 50 years
guaranteed fluoride treatment, we find:
-
more dentists per population
-
more dental hospitals
-
larger dental hospitals
-
more dental therapists
-
more dental hygienists
-
more dental school clinics
-
more bureaucrats promoting fluoridation
-
more decay and increased waiting time
for treatment
-
higher costs of dental treatment
-
greater Government and Press protection
of fluoride and fluoridation.
The dental pass-word to a successful career is
“Fluoride”.
The production of fluoride myths is a charade of
pseudo-scientists mirroring propaganda that is supported incredibly by the
media and Parliaments in support of commercialism, rather than science. That
used to be not only taught but generally accepted as FACT.
Today’s big war is Commercialism versus Science and
Honesty.
Our Federation has been disenfranchised from Health
matters in Australia. Democracy? or fear?
The Government does not reply to letters, fax messages or
Public Submissions from our Federation or Association.
The organised power against any mention of fluorides or
fluoridation has so much political, medical, media and dental clout they
could prove the Pope is not a catholic.
Our only ally is TRUTH, never destroyed, with no time
barrier, special debts, or favours to perform, and we all sleep well at
night!
We have no desire to hover around the Fluoridation Honey
Pot.
Copy List
|
