|
Copy List
Science, Scientists and Fluoridation
By Glen S.R. Walker
Science becomes a question of "who do you
believe" and the answer is always heavily weighted down on the side of
"accepted" experts, their statements usually more referenced to their
privileged positions than the science under consideration, or perhaps their
undivided loyalty to unnamed colleagues or groups.
Privileged positions of trust often have
little reference to scientific fact because solidarity becomes more
important in a long‑term relationship of benefits.
Most in such positions, follow the leader,
in childlike procession of safety in numbers of stronger longer leaders.
However, safety in many aspects is a case
of serious consideration, especially when faced with evidence of people who
preferred honest science and honest reporting only to discover their
services are no longer wanted.
There is no promotion or job security in
openly challenging "the establishment's thinking and actions," their word is
elite officialdom, the emblem of authority and dictatorial power that must
not be questioned.
Many important scientific opportunities are
for the "Wannabes", even "Coodabeenes", but without original thinking on
health subjects that are privy to the inner sanctum of professional and
political hierarchy, where plans are energised.
The convoluted opinions of scientists on
fluoridation are amazingly accepted, piece by piece, but seldom checked on
fact.
The convoluted opinions of scientists
on fluoridation are amazingly accepted, piece by piece, but seldom checked
on fact.
The infamous Dr. William McBride, a
champion of compulsory fluoridation, made this statement, Sydney
Morning Herald, 28th March, 1960:
"What Government, the medical
profession and drug companies should appreciate, is that the onus of
proving that a drug is safe does not end with laboratory and field
testing. This onus should remain permanently with the marketer of any drug
and with those who approve its marketing, in the light of its performance.
We live in an era which is yielding
increasing evidence that drugs can have side‑effects, which take years
to emerge or identify." (Emphasis added)
Which opinion do you accept?
The Federal and State Governments put the
onus on the public to prose harm from fluoridation, no onus on the
promoters, they belong to the Inner Sanctum!
Sir Macfarlane Burnet
Another ,Australian scientist, Sir
Macfarlane Burnet, was a supporter of compulsory fluoridation and in a
convoluted statement on pharmacology, 10th Leonard Ball Oration at the Royal
College of Surgeons, 14th August 1978 said:
"Every doctor is well aware of the
difference in effectiveness or toxicity of a drug for different people."
- Fluoridation is a medicine. (Australian
Therapeutic Goods Administration)
- Fluoride in Fluoridation is a drug.
(Food and Administration U.S.A.)
- Fluoride used for therapeutic effect
would be a drug, not a nutrient. (U.S. Department of Health)
- Fluoridation is compulsory preventative
medication. (Edinburgh High Court 1980)
The Victorian Government's use of Sir
Macfarlane Barnet's name as a staunch supporter and guarantee of compulsory
fluoridation resulted in direct questions to him relating to the medical
principles of medicine.
We wrote to him asking for scientific
confirmation of his claims. The Government referred to him as:
Nobel Prize manner and pre‑eminent
scientist" ...
... inferring of course he had researched
fluoride and its effects on the human body.
The Australian Government quotes:
"Barnet asserts that optimally
fluoridated water is a completely safe and desirable public health measure
for all groups in the community."
That is a grand statement but without
supporting scientific evidence (the usual fluoridation propaganda).
Barnet, like many other people in
privileged positions jumped on the "fluoridation wagon" expressing
professional opinions without scientific original support, but he traded on
his Nobel‑Prize as the epitome of scientific original facts.
His support, without published original
science, goes back to 1964 in Sydney when fluoridation was proposed.
The Sydney Daily Mirror, 13th
October, 1964, in large heading quoted Barnet as saying:
"The proposed fluoridation of Sydney's
water supply would be completely harmless."
"Water in some parts of the world
contained as much as five parts per million (5 p.p.m.)"
"Such water was not dangerous to
health but tended to produce mottled teeth."
He did not produce any scientific proof or
any original research.
Our letter to Burnett was 13th April, 1977,
in which we made reference to a statement by the premier of Victoria, Mr R.
Hamer, claiming "Burnett is regarded as an authority on the 'supposed
benefits of fluoridation'."
We advised Burnett that Dr Dean Burk,
former senior member of the U.S. National Cancer Institute would be visiting
Melbourne during August/September on a lecture tour sponsored by our
Association.
Dr Burk's subject was Cancer and
Fluoridation.
We invited Burnett to debate the subject
with Burk, and if he wished we would be happy to include, Heads of Eliza
Hall Institute, The Anti‑Cancer Council of Victoria, the Peter McCallum
Clinic, The Australian Medical Association and the Australian Dental
Association, all to "do battle with Burk and his studies showing a
relationship between fluoridation and cancer."
On 19th April, 1977, we again wrote to
Barnet acknowledging his reply of 15th April, in which he stated:
"I have a confirmed dislike of any
form of oral confrontation on scientific topics before non‑technical
audiences and have always refused to be involved. The decisions in favour
of fluoridation were based on sound scientific evidence and I see no
reason to change my, attitude. I shall certainly not discuss the matter
with any antagonist in public."
Not only Burnet, but all the above
mentioned 'experts' on fluoridation also refused our invitations, indeed
none would meet Burk.
The next contact with Burnet was our letter
29th January, 1979, in which we asked several questions:
"However, our grave concern is based
on the difficulty of understanding your scientific reasoning in
classifying Fluoride as a chemical so isolated, so different and unique,
to be in your opinion the only such substance in the world that is
universally harmless to humans and I expect animals also.
Of course, there are hundreds of
scientific papers, books and even Congressional Inquiries and court cases
to prove the opposite, so we again ask you to provide this Association
with your scientific proof backed by International authorities and subject
to the scrutiny of your peers."
At last he (Burnet) advised us he had
no original work on fluoridation, but was the highest authority the Hamer
Government could present to support fluoridation.
On 2nd February, 1979, Burnet replied as
follows (copy of total letter):
"Feb. 2, 1979.
Dear Sir,
The need for adequate fluorine in
human diet has been fully established for at least 20 years ‑ I fully
agree with the vast majority of biochemists, dentists and physicians that
it is highly desirable to rectify any water which is inadequate in
fluoride, but having retired for nearly 15 years with no secretarial help,
I am certainly, not going to undertake a literature survey on a matter
which is so much part of the accepted teaching on nutrition.
Yours faithfully, F.M. Burnet"
At last he advised us he had no original
work on fluoridation, but was the highest authority the Hamer Government
could present to support fluoridation.
Strange that in 1979 he was unable to put
pen to paper on his fluoridation claims, but was the author of a large
article on at least half page in the Age, 26th November, 1983, on the
subject of, "Can science solve the ageing problem."
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet died 31st
August, 1989. After his death, March 2002. The Sunday Age wrote up
the life of Burnet.
"Although his scientific colleagues
were somewhat amazed, Sir Macfarlane became a public luminary, and his
eminence made him immune from serious criticism."
Over and above his Nobel Prize the sad news
hit the fan, Burnet in The Special Report of the Age 10th March,
2002, was cited as the scientist who secretly recommended the Australian
Government should develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and
other "over populated" countries in South East Asia. (Minutes of the 11th
Meeting of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Committee 6th February, 1951
at Victoria Barracks).
perhaps we were wrong in taking direct
action on fluoridation with Burnet because, in the written history it was
noted:
"Although his scientific colleagues
were sometimes amazed, Sir Macfarlane became a public luminary, and his
eminence made him immune from serious criticism."
However, water pollution must surely have
been a constant thought!
In the minutes of 1951 he is reported:
"In a country of low sanitation the
introduction of an exotic intestinal pathogen, e.g. by water contamination
might initiate wide‑spread dissemination."
In his biography 1991, the author "relates
how Burnet's investigation of the claims illustrated his lifetime's
scrupulous search for factual evidence and commitment to truth."
His colleagues, Chairman and Director,
Burnet Institute, wrote a letter to the Sunday Age 17th March, 2002
stating:
"When confronted with the historical
realities of people whose lives have inspired us, we have three basic
choices: we can deny that their flaws were real; reject the entirety of
their lives and erase their memories; or we can acknowledge their misdeeds
with regret while celebrating their achievements.
Those of us who work in the Burnet
Institute have chosen the last course. We are appalled by the notion of
science working to destroy human life. However, we continue to be inspired
by the principles of scientific inquiry and the imperative of achieving
universal mental and physical health."
In contrast our Federation, has a single
platform in which we aim to establish TRUTH and TRUTH alone in fluoridation
science.
Our confrontation with scientists and
their reaction to discussions on health and fluoridation are the scientific
platform of this Association.
Our Federation has a single platform
in which we aim to establish TRUTH and TRUTH alone in fluoridation
science.
There are many "Public Luminary Scientists"
who also prove their claimed touted knowledge of fluoride and fluoridation
science, pharmacology and political correctness relating to the
Constitution.
The anti‑fluoridation people of the world
are continually forced to devote so much of time and effort to fighting the
scientific myths and unsubstantiated pronouncements about fluoridation,
impossible to believe made in the interest of "the people".
Copy List
|
