|
Copy List
The burning Fluoridation Question
In the ashes, there remains important
questions which will never be answered by time,
pseudo-science, or political and dental
machinations.
Time is a cruel factor in fluoride
and fluoridation scientific deliberation, when the fight is not
purely scientific as required by Common Law.
History books are overflowing with
accounts of similarly protected chemicals and
procedures that have taken over 100 years to get an
honest scientific definition relating to human
health and their toxicity.
Count the number of Federal and State
politicians who have "sat on their hands'' in
Parliament during this time without action or
interest on behalf of the people they
constitutionally represent!
Consider asbestos, just one example
and in more modern times, D.D.T., debondox, dialdrin,
lead, copper 7, 24D, 245T, etc to name a few of the
actual hundreds of such chemicals and processes
launched after Government approval of human safety.
All passed OK by people in
responsible Government positions but more
importantly, who really governs those people, who do
they really represent?
Perhaps the greatest question
relating to such action is 60 years of Governments
experimenting on their people with fluoride added to
their drinking water and legislating that toxic
chemical must be compulsorily pumped into every
community home water supply.
60 years of Governments
experimenting on their people with fluoride added
to their drinking water supplies.
At least the past disclosure of many
toxic compounds, once claimed safe, were in reality
never controlled by a Government Compulsory Usage
Act of Parliament. Their use in many cases was by
choice even though information about "the choice'
was based on a con-job by the Government and
promoters. In other words, they all amounted to
commercial projects sponsored by politicians, rather
than a project of human health.
Fluoridation is the "Orphan" health
process. It has no real scientific pedigree, but as
an illegitimate scientific drug it has been adopted,
honoured, worshipped, actually glorified as the
scientific saviour of scientific dentistry, the door
that opened to a higher status of professionalism.
(sic)
Perhaps its uniqueness, in flummoxed
science by a wealthy fluoride hierarchy, often
called the Fluoride Mafia, and a super-wealthy
industrial group of fertiliser factory operators,
especially in the U.S.A., the modern alchemists,
turning a waste toxic fluoride product into gold and
creating a commercial fortress of political interest
not necessary public health interest, and dentists
love it as their "scientific saviour". (sic)
Fluoridation, unashamedly and without
scientific proof, has been sponsored by many
organisations' executives (not by member votes).,
and of course, the naive politicians who follow like
Brown's Cows, requiring a leader to bring them to
the milking shed, sorry the Parliament.
From its very beginning, the
fluoridation promoters, in a U.S. back-water of
medical science and in a carefully organised covert
collection of data, made sure that the die was cast,
and this continued to this day.
A decision was necessary to establish
support for the above commercial project and protect
it from true science and public scrutiny.
A fluoridation Think Tank was
established, and of number one importance it was
necessary to plan answers to embarrassing and
scientific questions relating to not only the toxic
fluoride compound, but the actual medical and dental
science involved.
The answer was so simple, no one
could believe it would work in a short-time
exposure, but beyond all their sales dreams and
expectations, their Plan has prospered to this day.
The Plan
Do not answer questions against
fluoridation irrespective of their origin - in
fluoridation, silence is golden!
The Freedom from Fluoridation
Federation has been asking for scientific proof
about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation,
and calling, requesting, harassing, through all
avenues of science, medicine, dentistry,
pharmacology and or" course The Political Hall of
Fame, BUT such questions are never answered.
An example of "The Question" - 4th
July, 1978 - 25 years waiting for an answer:
"The following is part of a talk to
Ballarat businessmen on 4th July, 1978 by the
Author:
No place is habitable without
drinking water. The inhabitants of a modern city
must depend on a common water supply, and every
citizen has an equal claim to its purity; each has
a right to obtain water from his tap - not
medicine or soup! You may add any substance you
wish to your own water; your neighbour may do the
same. But neither has the right to interfere with
his neighbour's right to draw unmedicated water
from his own tap.
Our liberties are all of one piece,
and an attack on
anyone
is an attack on all. The most
fundamental right is the right to decide what
shall be taken into one's own body. You must ask
yourself these questions ...Is this thing true?
Does it make sense? Is it ethical? Is it moral? Is
it effective? Is it economically sound? Is it
safe? Has it been proven scientifically, and most
importantly, has it been accepted the world over
when equated to the above questions?
Facts are stubborn things! When you
defy them, you run into trouble. There is nothing
controversial about facts. Controversies arise
over opinion, not over facts. In the Dark Ages
people permitted themselves to be bound by
official opinions and not facts.
We Australians must demand
Legislation and Official Statements substantiated
by Facts - not unproven opinions."
Laws in many English speaking
countries "set in stone" rules applying to human
health claims and medical concepts.
Proof
of thorough scientific investigation
is necessary to produce and table before the public
for consideration and debate prior to registration
for the use on humans, details of new medications,
also the documents on testing examined accordingly
by Government specialised authorities.
Here we have the utter failure of the
Government's presentation and compulsory
installation of fluoridated drinking water supplies.
They fail their own laws.
There are no scientific, medical,
pharmacological or
dental studies showing
fluoridation safe and effective in such a manner and
to be REGISTERED and LICENSED for human use.
This makes
fluoridation illegal in the English speaking
countries where fluoridation is compulsorily piped
into every home, without consent, without need and
against the democratic and medical ethics of each
country.
WARNING
All this illegality is
possible by "The Plan", not to answer questions
about fluoridation which would blow the whole
fluoridation scam apart!
Copy List
|
