|
Copy List
THE TRUTH
BY FLUORIDATION EXAMINATION
How commercial “specialist groups” influence Governments,
the press and the public in their globalisation policies which promote and
sustain compulsory fluoridation.
by Glen S.R. Walker
Examinations are the testing of knowledge and truth, so
when information presented to the public is shown to be incorrect and
misleading, whether by accident or design, the people and organisations who
present such data have failed the test.
Over 50 years, since the
introduction of fluoridation, we have been bombarded in a bloody minded
manner by so-called scientists, researchers and commercial groups,
professionals in many disciplines, and those politicians “looking after” our
well-being, all selling the use of poisonous fluoride chemical pollutants
that are internationally banned from dumping into rivers, seas, oceans and
lakes, but they consider suitable to dump into our human drinking water
supplies by compulsion!
Where do or does the
mountains of this fluoride waste by-product toxic pollutant come from?
By Law it is removed from
superphosphate during manufacturing because of its toxicity if spread on
farmlands.
It would not only kill the
soil, the crops, the pasture and the animals it would be a serious health
hazard to the farmer and his family.
The promoters, in the name
and reputation of their organisations, Universities, Political Parties,
Medical and Dental Associations, Pharmaceutical Schools and those grandiose
groups such as The World Health Organisation, The Australian National Health
and Medical Research Council and Government Health Departments throughout
the world, claim fluoridation safe and effective for all age groups and
existing health differential conditions.
To this day not one of this
group has published scientific data proving fluoridation safe, nor any
studies on the fluoride pollutant they claim safe for human consumption
through the kitchen tap.
On this most important,
moral, scientific, political and democratic matter of safety, they all fail
the Examination of True Science, and sadly, so does the population also
fail, but in their health.
They parrot their masters
and hunt in flocks, rarely singly. They are noisy parrots, garrulous and
brash, usually with a limited vocabulary using the taught catch phrases
handed down from generation to generation of dentists and originally derived
from the myths of the American fluoride lobby that carries the banner for
the waste fluoride pollutant.
These parrots are closely
protected by the Governments of many countries including Australia, just in
case they may become an endangered species of commercial wealthy pseudo
scientists.
Some pro-fluoridation
followers remain adamant in their pronouncements, seemingly not willing to
bite the hand that feeds them, a position difficult to oppose.
Their convoluted,
unscientific, untrue assessment of fluoride science is legend in public
manuscripts.
Misrepresentation of York
Review
The latest example of their
kind of “honest” scientific presentation of fluoridation facts is their
delirious reaction to the official data that opposed their ever repeated
false propaganda.
The U.K. Government, York
University Review of Fluoridation, October 2000, has been publicly
misrepresented by the British Dental Association, The British Fluoridation
Society (part of B.D.A.), The British Medical Association, B.B.C. Radio and
Television (BBC). The media in general provided them with plenty of free
press.
So badly was the Review
scientifically and morally misrepresented, the Chairman of the Review
Committee, Professor Trevor Sheldon has gone to extreme action in the media
and Parliament to counter the wrong statements by the fluoride lobby agents
posing under such groups that seem to appeal to populations as “the
do-gooders”. They have failed the examination of honesty in reporting
scientific facts.
Consider the U.K. House of
Lords (Hansard)
Lord Avebury:
“My Lords, are the
Government satisfied that fluoridation is the most exhaustively tested
public health measure that the world has ever known?”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath:
“Your Lordships may be
aware that a report from York University commissioned by the Government
concluded in October that fluoridation helps to reduce tooth decay. It
also found no evidence to support the concerns that had been expressed
about health effects.”
He failed to state that the
York Review was unable to state scientifically that no other cells in
children’s bodies are also poisoned by fluoride.
Lord Baldwin of Bewdley,
House of Lords, 13th December, 2000 (Hansard):
“... I turn lastly to the
vexed matter of water fluoridation. In the 1999 White Paper, Saving Lives:
Our Healthier Nation, the Government announced that they were setting in
motion an ‘up-to-date expert scientific review of fluoride and health’.
“Possible legislation was
foreshadowed. Partly because of the many questions I had tabled on this
topic, and the debate in my name in December 1998, I found myself on the
advisory board to the review team at the NHS Centre for Reviews and
Dissemination at York, in close contact with the scientific process from
the summer of 1999 to the publication of the final report on 6th October
this year.
“The expectation of the
dental and medical authorities, and it is fair to say of the Government
also, was that the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation would be
confirmed. That expectation was disappointed. In addressing the five
principal questions that were asked, the report is studded with phrases
such as “limited quantity”, “moderate quality”, “a small number of
studies”, “needs further clarification”, “surprising to find that little
high quality research has been undertaken”, “insufficient quality to allow
confident statements”, “not ... enough good quality evidence ... to reach
conclusions”. Important gaps in the evidence base were identified.
“I am aware that many of
your Lordships have had briefings from the British Dental Association, the
British Fluoridation Society and/or the National Association for Equity in
Dental Health. I am aware, as we all are, that briefings by professional
bodies, including professors of dentistry, carry weight with the public,
are likely to be believed and therefore bear a particular responsibility
for accuracy. These briefings and press releases are little short of
extraordinary.
“I have collated four
pages of statements culled from these documents, with alongside them for
comparison quotations from the text of the report itself. I can give the
flavour of them in two or three short examples. I have placed copies in
the Library for those who would like to read more.
“The British Dental
Association says,
“The report confirms that
there is clear evidence that fluoridation reduces (decay)”,
the report stated:
“To have clear confidence
in the ability to answer (this) question ... the quality of the evidence
would need to be higher”.
“Because I am known to
oppose the fluoridation of water, I have taken the greatest care to keep
in step with the leading scientists at York and to write and say nothing
in interpretation of their report which goes beyond the evidence. I have
the permission of Professor Sheldon, the founding director of the NHS
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York, who chaired the advisory
board which oversaw the whole review process, to quote him as follows:
“It is particularly
worrying ... that statements which mislead the public about the review’s
findings have been made in the press releases and briefings by the British
Dental Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental health and
the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these
errors.”
“He continues:
“1.
Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is
effective at reducing caries, the quality of studies was generally
moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%,
is far from massive.
2.
The review found water fluoridation to ‘be
significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis, which was
not characterised as just a ‘cosmetic issue’.
3.
The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe.
The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence
whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition
to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research
was needed.
4. There was little
evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities
in dental health.
“I shall skip most of
what follows and just give Professor Sheldon’s final point. He states:
“The review team was
surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over
several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to
inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken ... there will
continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects
and costs of water fluoridation.” (Emphasis added)
“My only question to the
Minister, in the light of the state of the evidence as set out by one of
the two principal scientists involved in the review and of these
extraordinary briefing papers, are whether the Government still think it
appropriate, first, to go on making financial contributions to the British
Fluoridation Society, and, secondly, to encourage certain health
authorities, as they have said that they would, to consider water
fluoridation schemes. The noble Lord would also do me a good turn if he
could secure for me a reply from his colleague the Secretary of State to
the personal letter I wrote to him on this matter on 5th August, repeated
on 7th October, and reminded again on 14th November. With fluoridation,
things tend to take a long time.”
Lord Colwyn:
“Perhaps I may touch
briefly on fluoridation. I am well aware that the noble Earl, Lord
Baldwin, will have given an opposite view to mine. The recent York Review
has confirmed that fluoridation is safe and effective in reducing levels
of tooth decay and is essential in the fight to reduce inequalities in
dental health. The Government have announced that they will be -
“encouraging health
authorities with particular dental health problems to consider
fluoridating their water as part of their overall health strategy.”
(Emphasis added)
Again under examination the
House of Lords was mislead and the Government failed the examination of
honesty.
The British Dental
Association says,
“There is no evidence
that ... fluoridation is linked to cancer, bone disease or any other
adverse effect” and “The report confirms that fluoridation reduces dental
health inequalities.”
the report says,
“The research evidence is
of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other
potential harms (than dental fluorosis) or whether there is an impact on
social inequalities.”
The British Fluoridation
Society says,
“If there were any
adverse effects ... it is inconceivable that the York review would have
missed them”,
the York review says,
“Some possible adverse
effects ... may take years to develop and so ... the relationship may go
undetected”, and, “High quality research (into adverse effects ... is
needed.”
“One might have thought
if one did not know that fluoridation had been an article of dental faith
for fifty years, that this was simply carelessness. Such a thought is
dispelled when one finds a wrong figure quoted for seriously mottled
teeth, which could only be cited by the author having read, and
misinterpreted, some of the very small print.”
So bad was York Review
scientifically and indeed morally misrepresented to the public, the Chairman
of the York Review, Professor Sheldon, went to extreme action to refute the
dental and medical misinformation in both media and The Parliament.
These organisations,
smarting under the York Review negative findings on fluoridation, seem to be
the heroes and the do-gooders, appealing to the public, who trust their
integrity in their particular fields of human health endeavours.
Perhaps the most outlandish
culpable health statement by the British Medical Association, printed in
their BMA Journal, relates to misinformation on their well designed
emotional old dental chestnut “that fluoridation is especially (sometimes
politically expressed as “most important benefit”) for the benefit of poor
and disadvantaged children.
They stated:
“The Review confirms that
fluoridation reduces dental health inequalities ... and significantly
narrows the dental health gap.”
The following York
Statement is exactly and officially their findings into research relative to
the emotional dental propaganda of poor and disadvantaged children.
“The research evidence
is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other
potential harms (than dental fluorosis) or whether there is an impact on
social inequalities.” Executive Summary Conclusions.
Is it any wonder that
Professor Sheldon, as Chairman of the York Review, wrote to the U.K.
Parliament, 10th September, 2000:
“It is particularly
worrying then that statements (about our fluoridation findings) which
mislead the public have been made in press releases and briefings by The
British Dental Association (BDA), The British Fluoridation Society (part
of the BDA).”
Again the fluoridation hoi
polloi fail the scientific honesty examination.
There is only one safe
substitute for fluoridation - NO FLUORIDATION.
Whilst there is any
fluoridation, the problem will be a contest between honest science and
commercial wealth that permeates the world.
The words of a now
“untouchable” retired dental scientist:
“Fluoridation is what
we fake it.”
With such allied media,
politicians and international commercialism, the common transparency of good
becomes quite opaque, presented under the fakery guise of today’s
buzz-words, Ethical, Beneficial, Scientific, Proven, Public Importance,
Progressive, plus the many conjured up new expressions of scientific deceit.
That group is lost, we give
them a map, but they must still do the mapped journey of understanding and
moral obedience to honest science.
The Parliamentary catechism
is that, “nothing ever happens in politics unless it is planned.”
The political spin doctors
do the planning, specialising in camouflaged science and truth.
“Planning is a scheme
of arrangement; a scheme can be artful, underhand, intrigue”. (Oxford
Dictionary)
Example of Planned
Camouflaged Action
The Sodium Silicofluoride,
an industrial waste pollutant, added to Australian drinking water supplies,
is described by the spin doctors as “NATURAL”.
(1) That description of the
fluoride water additive is untrue. It is not “natural”, it is a fertiliser
factory poisonous waste by-product pollutant, collected in the fertiliser
factory exhaust chimneys.
(2) Their camouflaged
“natural” claim is necessary to hide true scientific evidence documented in
scientific literature.
(3) Their camouflage is an
endeavour to hide all similar data as follows: The description of sodium
silicofluoride as published in “Pharmacists U.S. Dispensatory” 24th Edition:
(4) “Sodium silicofluoride,
also known as sodium fluosilicate, Na2SiF6, is a white granular powder
soluble in 150 parts of water. Since the fluosilicates possess the toxic
properties of the fluorides, this salt is largely used as an insect
exterminator and rat poison. (Confirmed by WHO)
Fluorides are violent
poisons to all living tissue because of their precipitation of calcium. When
introduced into the mammalian circulation they cause fall of blood pressure,
respiratory failure and general paralysis. Continuous ingestion of non-fatal
doses, according to Sollmann (J.Pharmacol., 1921, 17, 197), cause general
cachexia and permanent inhibition of growth. It is well established that the
condition characterised by mottled enamel of the teeth endemic in certain
areas - notably the Mississippi Valley - is due to the presence of small
amounts of fluorides in the drinking water.” (cachexia - general ill health,
cancer)
Advice to and from
politicians is sadly exemplified when the recent President of the U.S.A.,
Bill Clinton, is spiritually counselled by a similar offender, Reverend
Jesse Jackson. This draws attention to where such heads of State obtain
their knowledge on particular matters.
The Politics of
Fluoridation
“If you are still
wondering who is really behind all this (fluoridation manipulation), you
may want to ask yourself what is the most important motivator in this
country (USA).
“If you didn’t come up
with MONEY, then you are in great need of an education in basic American
business and politics. Just follow the money.
“Everybody looks to money
as a cure for everything, especially the disposal of toxic waste
by-products from big industry.
“Thus doctors, dentists
and public-health administrators act as public relation agents and
facilitators to impress politicians of industry’s need to get rid of its
toxic waste, under the pretext of health benefits. And industry sweetens
the deal for legislators by special favours and incentives. (Call them
considerations).”
(George Bushnell M.A.,
L.A. Citizens for Safe Drinking Water USA).
Obviously true fluoridation
science is an enforced straight-jacket operation by those in charge of
“Public Health”.
The prosperity of a Nation
is presented in the media as “economy relating to a Government’s Budget”.
That “prosperity” is a fake
to cover all other necessary attainments covered in Constitutions and honest
democracy.
Governments and their
bureaucrats suffer serious Moral Deficits, much more detrimental to the
population than phoney “Finance Deficits”.
Paper-money cannot buy
morality, without which a Nation cannot prosper in Democratic Constitutional
honesty and freedom of the people.
Ask your politician about
Government Moral Deficit.
“Dental Fluoride Science”
is gift-wrapped to politicians and industry polluters, but their “science”
is a mystery with little transparency.
Copy List
|
