UPDATED

02 MAR 06

Copy List

The Scientific Silliness of Fluoridation

By GLEN S.R. WALKER

A continuous 60 years of fluoridation scientific silliness, the greatest scientific fraud of all times, commercially funded, and supported by politicians of all persuasions, medical bodies and, of course, the God of Dentistry.

Some day a film producer will make a documentary on the history of fluoridation. If produced with honest fact, it will be a dreadful medical, political and dental comedy.

They may commence with the international scientific "joke" from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH and MRC), published in their 1986 Report on Fluoridation that:

"Fluoride is an endogenous ion of the human organism."

Most people understand the term endogenous has but one meaning. It is a specific term meaning "originating from within the body".

We hope the fertiliser suppliers of fluoride do not panic at a possible prospective competitor automatically producing fluoride from within each human body.

The scientific silliness of that statement, its tawdry erroneous meaning did nothing for Australian science.

The documentary will be of rather long duration, necessary to include all the silly statements made by fluoridation promoters, each showing artificial fluoridation as perfectly safe to daily drug all people, with a NEVER pharmaceutically proven or REGISTERED fluoride chemical for human use. (US FDA, US EPA)

Sodium silicofluoride is the chemical used to fluoridate drinking water supplies throughout Australia. It is a waste product pollutant, collected in fertiliser factory exhaust chimneys, too toxic to emit into the atmosphere.

A U.S. Government Agency has now requested this poisonous pollutant be labelled "the product" but the U.K. Medical Research Council go one better and call it "a primary product", must not call it a pollutant.

The old story about dressing a monkey in any clothes you wish, but it still leaves the monkey a monkey. Such is the ridiculous scientific approach attempting to dress sodium silicofluoride as a benign nutrient and essential chemical for human use.

Over many years we have published FACTS about "the unknown fluoride dose", obviously ignored by those knowing experts because they have a serious pharmacology, medical problem, associated with their claims of "known and safe Dose per Person".

Consider the following statement by the UK MRC, 2002 Research of Fluoridation:

"However, total exposure to fluoride will depend on the volume of water consumed."

Having made that extraordinary statement of medical and pharmaceutical principles of "dose", the same Committee still recommend compulsory artificial fluoridation, admitting they do not know the fluoride dose of ANY PERSON!!!

Perhaps their statement was not an original one, they may have only read our Australian Fluoridation News articles on that important matter.

So, at last, we have one medical group "starting" to understand the silliness of past fluoridation- -pharmacology and the meaning of a medical DOSE, controlled by a person's thirst that differs enormously between every person, young and old.

Consider, Section 2, of the U.K. Medical Fluoridation Report:

"Over all, the "current evidence" does not support the hypothesis that exposure to artificial fluoridated water causes an increase in the risk for cancer in humans."

Note that science against fluoridation is labelled an hypothesis, but on a study of the pro-fluoridation claims regarding health and teeth, one finds their claims are in reality based on hypothetical science.

"For osteosarcoma, the three small case-control studies cannot exclude an increase of the order of twofold for exposure to fluoridated water ...."

The MRC document their expert scientific knowledge that fluoridation does not and cannot cause cancer. However, in their own "Summation" on DOSE they state:

"Assessment of all sources, food, drink, fluoridation, toothpaste, would in theory allow estimation of cancer risk in relation to total fluoride intake, and assessment of the component due to fluoridated water." (Emphasis added)

For "normal" fluoridation papers supporting fluoridation, the Section 2, paragraph, will be used as a "reference" to support other author's efforts to protect fluoridation and the case against it, relative to causing cancer, but the above statement will not appear because it confirms "the risk in relation to total fluoride intake."

Scientific silliness seems to be the power of promoting compulsory artificial fluoridation:

"Risk estimate" (MRC) "The evidence available does not suggest that fluoridated water increases the risk for cancer in general or for any particular type cancer, including osteosarcoma."

Note the cleverness in their chosen wording - "the evidence available". When challenged about scientific data showing the opposite, the answer may be, "Oh dear, we seem not to have had 'that one"; but it would have been available.

However, making the above statement for future reference usage they add:

"For osteosarcoma the three small case-control studies cannot exclude an increase of the order of twofold for exposure to fluoridated water, but an increase as large as this is not compatible with the ecological data, in particular those analysed by Hoover et. al. 1991."

"In conclusion, although a small increase in cancer risk cannot be excluded, the data do not suggest any increase in risk and in view of the type of data available it does not seem appropriate to estimate the number of cancer that might be caused by fluoridation." (Emphasis added)

The above is a part critique of a small section of the latest 2002, U.K. Government Expert Medical Committee Research into fluoridation, but more research they say, is necessary, so the fluoridation scientific merry-go-round, with its 60 year old planned delay tactic, heads the sillyness of public apathy and the "honesty" of elected politicians.

Documented scientific fluoridation history will never be buried beneath commercial pseudo-science, camouflaged as "referenced" excellence.

Dentists pay dental hierarchy to force fluoridation, but explain "fluoridated water will put half of the number of dentists out of work."

Unemployed people in Australia are paying to get jobs, but dentists are paying their money to become unemployed. (Australian Fluoridation News 1997).

American journal of Children's Diseases 1963, published by the AMA made this statement:

"Fluorine (fluoride) is a potent poison. Dosage is highly variable and inaccurate."

Sodium Fluoride a drug

During 1963 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated

"Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient. Fluoride has not been determined essential to human nutriment."

"A minimum dose of fluoride has not been determined."

The Pharmacology for Dental Hygienists states, (p. 302):

"Sealants - The occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth remain particularly susceptible to dental caries. The primary therapeutic means of protecting occlusal surfaces lies in the use of adhesive resins to seal these surfaces. "

Seems in scientific reality, "therapeutic means of stopping tooth decay" is nothing associated with compulsory artificial fluoridation, but the application of sealants.

The fluoridation silliness seems to twist and turn, it goes up and down, never settles on an even playing surface with fixed goal posts, its boastful claims often followed with damaging contradictions, nicely covered over by the voice of dentistry, and the Directors of the International Fluoride Lobby in association with fertiliser factories ridding themselves of this UNREGISTERED particular pollution poison.

Today world economists will not allow health matters to interfere with a commercial practice.

The U.S. National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) relates in 1960:

"The mainstream scientific community had accepted fluoridation as safe and effective in cutting dental decay, scientists still had much to learn about the mechanisms involved in its effectiveness."

"After 20 years of research, scientists still did not know how fluoride worked to prevent dental caries. How did the fluoride ion combine with elements of tooth structure to create more resistance to decay?

"Moreover, no one could explain why, when drinking water was fluoridated, some people had more cavities than others." (Emphasis added)

The only conclusion one can make is that nothing has changed in the world of fluoridation fantasy. Fluoridation was declared safe and effective in 1960 without any scientific evidence, without clinical medical evidence of safety, and all conclusions without scientific proof, a compulsory mass medical process, controlled by a load of dental 'zealists', with claims of fluoridation safety based on pseudo scientists changing laws of chemical poisons into grand essential nutrients by words that are intellectually dishonest.

The fluoridation joke has no ending and no hilarious laughter.

Oxford Dictionary - "joke - ridiculous circumstances".

Scientific silliness

The MRC Report uses references such as the NH and MRC Research 1999.

A sample of their scientific silliness - That medical group researching fluoridation for the NH and MRC was not a dental group, nor did it have any private independent members.

The NH and MRC medical research group made the following statement, Chapter 5, page 5:

"Dental Caries World Wide

According to the World Health Organization, more than 60% of European countries have achieved the goal of no more than 3 DMFT at 12 years. From the literature a large relative benefit in caries reduction has been demonstrated in fluoridated communities compared to non-fluoridated communities, however the absolute difference maybe quite small."

The NH and MRC medical research group: "An excellent example of absolute diametrically opposite scientific facts of fluoridation truth."

Here is an excellent example of absolute diametrically opposite scientific facts of fluoridation truth. Consider the silliness - quote, "large benefits in caries reduction", BUT, "the absolute difference may be quite small".

Question: Can a "large benefit" be "quite small", or is this the scientific norm in NH and MRC fluoridation scientific research, proudly referenced by the U.K. Government Fluoridation Research by their Medical Research Council?

Referring to the "World Wide Dental Caries" statement, there is no universal fluoridation in Europe except one small plant in Switzerland and 2 small recent experimental plants in Spain, ninety eight percent (98%) of European population do not use fluoridation, so the inference used is that fluoridation has been responsible for the 60 per cent dental goal of only 3DMFT in 12 year old children or else this excellent result has been attained without fluoridation, the latter is the only possibility!

For real fluoridation science, relative to the MRC reference, NH and MRC 1999, the MRC should have studied the submission, critique, of that Report by Ziegelbecker, April 1999 to the NH and MRC (28 pages) also the official 100 page Critical Review by the Freedom From Fluoridation Association, May 1999.

Irish Government Research

The fluoridation silliness continues in the Irish

Government Research 11th September 2002.

After two years investigation, the Government Fluoridation Forum has announced their conclusions and recommendations.

(1) "Products containing fluoride to be better labelled and carry clearer instructions for use."

(2) "Reduce amount of fluoride in water from 1 ppm to 0.6 - 0.8 ppm."

(3) "Educate parents that children under 2 years should not use fluoride toothpaste and 2-7 year olds use only a pea-sized amount."

(4) "Child-proof containers to be used for mouth rinses and certain other products containing fluoride."

Simple logic therefore categorises all the above, 1-4, as warnings of poisonous fluoride chemicals, not safe for children or adults.

Scientific fluoridation silliness reigns supreme - they agree fluoride is a dangerous poisonous chemical, but state, the policy of adding fluoride to the drinking water supplies "should continue."

"Educate parents that children under 2 years should not use fluoride toothpaste."

Irish Government Fluoridation Forum

Fluoridation safety and effectiveness is entrenched in the minds of politicians, dentists and people enjoying public positions of trust, hiding behind their impenetrable wall of silence away from scientific reality.

The greatest fluoridation silliness must surely be the action of the Victorian Parliament, that, in 1993, changed the Victorian Constitution that now PROHIBITS the Victorian Supreme Court from "entertaining" cases on Fluoridation.

The silliness goes two ways - (1) The Parliament and its "elected members" and (2) the people of Victoria and dogooder_Zrouas including the Legal Institute, the Civil Rights group and the mums and dads, all in the land of apathy, nobody seems to care about the compulsory drugging of the population with an UNREGISTERED poison pollutant! Power to the politicians!

Another example of dental silliness came over the TV News, 4th August, 2002.

In a country area, a dentist lamented the lack of fluoridation in country Victoria.

He made his case - Melbourne children have better teeth than their country counterparts, so he considered it essential to fluoridate country water supplies.

Of course he did not understand the science of statistics, you cannot compare dissimilar populations. (Australian Fluoridation News). However his declaration of fluoridation facts was outstanding.

He said that "more dentists would go to a Country Area if it was fluoridated!"

Does that mean there is more work for dentists in fluoridated areas?

Compulsory fluoride drugging of Defence personnel, but no proven benefit to adult dentition

Featuring in great prominence of scientific silliness is the Australian Law Compelling all Defence personnel, Army. Navy, Air Force, to drink only fluoridated water.

This originated by a World War II American General who prohibited a dental Lt. Col. Mick from continuing his research into its scientific safety or medical requirement and effectiveness.

That Lt. Colonel, dentist Robert .H. Mick, wrote to the U.S. Secretary of the Army on 10th October, 1954 as follows:

"Subject: Request for Results of Experimentation on Fluoridation of Post Water Supplies.

Thru: Channels

To: Secretary of the Army

Washington, 25, DC

1. Reference is made to my letter, file A CAC-C(of) C71.1 (6 June 43) MEDCA, dated 1, July 1954 Subject: "Fluoridation of Post Water Supplies". It is requested that the undersigned be furnished the results of experimental work or references thereof conducted by the Army or any other governmental agency or any responsible agency such as the American Dental Association or United States Public Health Service that have influenced the Secretary of the Army to endorse the procedure of adding artificial fluorides to the drinking water of any and all Army Posts or establishments whose waters by certain individuals are thought to contain too little fluorine.

2. Further, it is requested that the results of experimental work conducted by the Army or any other governmental agency or such responsible agency as the American Dental Association or the United States Public Health Service (or references thereoO proving no harmful effects from drinking artificially fluorinated water over a continuous long period of time, equivalent to at least three generations, be made available.

Signed Robert. H. Mick

Lt. Col. D.C. 0.1939209

5th General Hospital

A. PO. 154 New York N. Y "

NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED. (Original documents our files)

On researching the compulsory fluoridated Water Law for all Australian Defence people, and after a long time waiting for Government data, the following fluoridation silliness was presented by Department for Defence Science and Personnel, Parliament House, Canberra ACT, 17th September, 1987:

"In the Summary of Recommendations of the statement, the Council (NH & MRC) confirmed its previous recommendations concerning the fluoridation of water as being a safe and effective measure for the control of dental caries.

The statement does not confirm or deny any benefit to the adult dentition from fluoridated water; nevertheless, references cited within it state that fluoridated water at the recommended level is not a hazard to health."

"Yours sincerely The Hon Ros Kelly MP"

What silliness - fluoridated water not proven "benefit to the adult dentition", BUT, "we" think it is safe so will still force that fluoride drugging on all Defence Personnel!

The Australian Dental Association

The silliness of the ADA is exhibited in their official document sent to Victorian politicians after the famous presentation, 21st March, 2001 by the Government to the 25th Anniversary of the Heroes of Fluoridation (hand picked by the Premier and Health Minister and private presentation).

The Age reported in large type, 22nd March, 2001, "A City toasts its fluoride heroes".

We would appreciate a clarification of where such nonsense "City toasts" is calculated.

The ADA official document of many pages made this statement, page 1:

"Over 100 studies in 20 countries have shown that exposure to fluoridated water is associated with a reduction of between 30-50 per cent in the level of decay experienced."

Many letters were sent to the ADA asking for a copy of that Report or source indicating where it was published.

Not one person received an answer to their question even though it was accepted and copied around Victoria by avid promoters of fluoridation including the Leader of the Liberal Party, Dennis Napthine, Hamilton Spectator 30th April, 2002.

However, in general political style Dennis Napthine went the limit and said, "more than 1000 studies in 20 countries showed" etc. etc. So the ADA stated 100 studies (unfounded) but the Leader of the Liberal Party goes one better and quoted "1000" studies (also quoted by ADA) to "prove" the benefit of fluoridation.

The propaganda is collected by hungry fluoride believers for strange unscientific reasons.

':... fluoridation is a vast con job being foistered on the American public by government and industry."

Retired Dentist

The medical publication "Your Doctor", Ballarat, March 2000, boasted the "Benefits of Fluoride" by "Over 100 research studies in 20 countries have shown that this action reduces tooth decay by about 50%."

This author wrote several times to that publication asking for a copy of the "research studies" but not one communication was answered.

Fluoridation propaganda (truth) is like the plague, most contagious, craftily infective, in an attempt to make small people turn into pillars of health wisdom.

The world of fluoridation covers all countries, it is an International Fluoride Lobby. The US Billings Gazette, 27th October, 2002, in an article by Ed Kemmick stated:

"Israelis and Palestinians will live in peace before opponents and supporters of water fluoridation agree on anything."

The article quotes Council voted 13th May, 2002, to add fluoride to the City Water Supply.

"Billing voters have defeated fluoridation proposals twice before - by 3070 in 1967, and 550 in 1982. Opponents of fluoridation have gathered enough petition signatures to force a public vote on the issue.

Mae Woo, a retired dentist who moved to Billing 12 years ago, said the research she has done since giving up her practice in California convinced her that fluoridation is a vast con job being foisted on the American public by government and industry."

However, this dentist dropped a real bomb (although known to some) by stating

"When she attended the UCLA dental school it was made clear to students that anyone who deviated from the orthodox line and questioned the benefits of fluoridation wouldn't be allowed to graduate."

Sounds more like an Australian Political Party formula.

"Democracy" by compulsion!

The Victorian Government produced a booklet "Fluoridation strengthens teeth throughout life", June 2002 with the "Official" foreword page by John Thwaites, Minister for Health.

One of his paragraphs states:

"Fluoridation is safe and beneficial to everyone's dental health regardless of age."

In his Department's data they state, page 12,

"Over 1000 studies in more than 20 countries have shown that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay in both children and adults."

So those afflicted with this contagious fluoridation health fantasy, keep telling dental fairytales of intellectually dishonest scientific genuineness.

They cannot show proof of their statements.

Sometimes it takes serious true scientific data to convince persons attempting to cover their scientific falsity connected with their ill-gotten reputations in a scientific field.

Example - In the United States District Court, 6 November 2002, the District Court of Oregon, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, reports a libel case for $100,000 damages by Stephen Barrett, MD against Darlene Sherrell for damages to his reputation.

Darlene Sherrell published on her internet details of Barrett's connection with false scientific data about fluoridation. The legal details are lengthy but of great interest to our readers and indeed, those named above, is the fact that Barrett has been a front runner for many years back in the days of Burk and Yiamouyiannis in destroying any evidence against fluoridation.

His case was dismissed, and Findings of the Court show this leading fluoridation personality, when challenged, could not name any scientific study showing fluoridation safe for humans.

That was in spite of him claiming, "hundreds of studies pertaining to the safety of fluoridation".

If only Barrett had remembered the great promoters of fluoridation in Australia, including the Victorian Government and its Ministers, the Labour and Liberal Parties, the ADA, Medical groups, etc etc, all of whom claim there are 1000 scientific studies in 20 countries showing the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation. But, like Barrett, they also cannot produce such scientific studies when asked.

Barrett is the author of the 1972 infamous article against anti-fluoridationists - he calls us the "Poison-Mongers"; the meaning of a "monger" is one who sells something - like fluoridation!!! For further details on Barrett see Fluoride, The Ageing Factor, by John Yiamouyiannis.

Copy List