UPDATED

02 MAR 06

Copy List

HEALTH MINISTER IGNORES EVIDENCE AGAINST FLUORIDATION

Summary of recent correspondence with the Victorian Minister for Health

The Anti-Fluoridation Association of Victoria

Educational, Non-Profit, Non-Sectarian, Non-Party Political, Facts Through Research.

Address all Correspondence to: BOX 935G, G.P.O., MELBOURNE, 3001.

17th July, 2002.

OPEN LETTER

The Hon. John Thwaites M.L.A.,

Minister for Health,

357 Clarendon Street,

SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC. 3205

Dear Mr Thwaites.

Today's pilgrimage to pay respect and homage to Sir Edward Dunlop at his statue in St. Kilda Road, Kings Domain Gardens, has encouraged me to again write to you as Minister of Health on the subject of fluoridation.

You may not know that Sir Edward was a great supporter of our Association.

He is well remembered for his speech against fluoridation, on the Melbourne Town Hall platform. A public lecture 4th June, 1975. He was able to present fluoridation facts about adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water supplies and related his experiences in India, where he visited under the Columbo Plan, and spent time with Professor Jolly, another fluoridation scientist, and produced photos of human harm.

Sir Edward emphasised "the water supply is not a good medium for delivery of a precise dose of medication to the individual."

In an act of his appreciation to our cause he presented me with his original written notes used in his speech.

Many scientists classify fluoridation as a belief devoid of science and promoted on a false scientific premise and commercialism.

Is fluoridation safe?

The sodium silicofluoride chemical used to fluoridate Melbourne drinking water supplies is a toxic pollutant waste by-product collected in the exhaust chimneys of fertilizer factories in the U.S.A., not permitted by law to escape into the atmosphere because it would kill every living entity within proximity to the fertilizer factory.

It is removed from superphosphate because if the final fertilizer still contained all that sodium silicofluoride and spread on farms, it would destroy pastures, animals, the soil, and possibly the farmer. (Phillips 1963, Shupe 1972, Suttie 1980).

This problem also relates to fluoride pollution from Aluminium Smelters. (Maylin, Krook 1979, Primary Industries, Comalco Bell Bay, Tasmania 1993).

In Tasmania, 'Comalco is the major factor poisoning the Tamar Valley cattle.' A Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries survey found fourteen (14) of eighteen (18) properties surveyed had cattle with elevated bone fluoride or dental fluorosis. (Mercury, 14th May, 1993).

The poisoned farms were subsequently purchased by Comalco as a 'buffer area to their smelter."

Tasmania, the longest fluoridation State in Australia, fluoridated 50 years and recently the President of the A.D.A. was reported as stating:

"Tasmania is on the brink of a dental crisis." (Advocate 4th May, 2001).

Photos of people collecting petitions in the street at Burnie calling on the Tasmanian Government to give the public a dental service for the thousands waiting on a 3-year list.

Minister, that is a reality that conjures up the failed promised guarantees by Government that after fluoridation - no decay and very few dentists needed.

One important fluoridation question dominates our concern to which we seek your personal reply.

The question relates to the many pronouncements you have been making throughout Victoria claiming 'fluoridation is safe.'

Your scientific claim is contrary to the U.S.A. Food and Drug Administration who have declared they have never registered sodium silicofluoride as a safe chemical-cum-drug for humans and in fact have never had such an application.

The U.S., E.P.A., responsible for deciding concentrations of fluoride in drinking water supplies, stated: they are not in possession of any scientific data proving safety of sodium silicofluoride for human use in drinking water supplies.

After 50 years fluoridation in U.S.A., their E.P.A. is appealing to public scientists to submit data relating to the not known, actual, dissociation of sodium silicofluoride in drinking water supplies.

The E.P.A. in their introduction to "Request for Assistance" admit:

"The release of fluoride proceeds through a complex multi-step equilibrium process that is not well-understood."

Do you or your Department know the answer to this chemical conundrum? This is another case of unscientific dosing of people

with fluoride chemicals without knowing the chemical action, reaction or interaction of sodium silicofluoride in drinking water supplies.

For many years this Association has seriously questioned all the safety claims made without supporting scientific evidence.

We, and others, have questioned the N.H. and M.R.C. for scientific proof of their safety claims.

They cannot, scientifically substantiate their claim which is accepted by Australian Governments including Victoria.

We have also requested the same scientific proof from the World Health Organization, but they cannot produce such evidence of scientific research proving fluoridation safe.

In spite of that important fact you fail your position of Minister of Health accordingly.

Questions to A.M.A., A.D.A., have been answered stating 'they' are not a research organization.

Your privileged position, responsible to the people of Victoria, your total access to the media, results in statements on fluoridation, that are scientifically, unsubstantiated, and like the unknown fluoride daily dose per person, uncontrollable, and indeed uncontrolled, makes a mockery of a so-called Health Department.

Your answers will be seriously acknowledged, hopefully with real scientific references from published works in refereed scientific journals on which your credibility and that of the Victorian Health department stands or falls.

Because the F.D.A. has not REGISTERED sodium silicofluoride as a safe drug for humans, we consider you have no scientific, medical or pharmaceutical basis or permission to add the fluoride waste by-product pollutant, collected in fertilizer factories for human consumption.

On behalf of our members and indeed an overwhelming majority of Victorian people, we consider it unlawful to continue.

It is against the Commonwealth Constitution (51, xxiiiA) which states 'no medical or dental conscription' (forced fluoridation) as well as Moral Laws and Democracy.

The Victorian Government goes to extreme process to promote the 'protected poison'.

The Government claim of safety is paramount in your Department and spelt out clearly by yourself, but logic questions your parliamentary action in protecting responsible people by inserting Indemnity clauses to protect those responsible.

However, worse was to come, either by design or fear, when the Victorian Government in 1993 changed the Victorian Constitution prohibiting the Supreme Court of Victoria from entertaining an action of the kind referred to in Section 4'.

The lack of logic, hiding accountability is highlighted in legal, or as some say, illegal action to prove and preserve the right to call fluoridation SAFE, all without scientific proof or the voice of the people under referenda.

We question your authority why Victorian people should be forced to ingest daily doses of an UNREGISTERED poison chemical?

It is disturbing to read your reasoning relating to Melbourne children's teeth compared with Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Warmambool, Horsham, Hamilton; claiming the benefit of fluoridation.

We suggest that instead of listening to dentists, on a matter in which they are not qualified, you take conference with a qualified statesman, and ask if your statements qualify in such comparisons under the laws of statistics.

These differences alone scientifically condemn claims of comparison on a statistical basis, but when the socio-economic differences are noted, your claims are false.

In your promotion of dissimilar cities, it is interesting that you never mention unfluoridated Brisbane, a City that could better be involved in a statistical comparison with Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth.

However, Brisbane is an embarrassment to fluoridation promoters because they had a research study in 1997 by a Committee of Doctors, Dentists and Health Department representatives.

That research established the lack of scientific evidence to convince the Committee of any benefit to Brisbane children on fluoridation.

Please, Mr. Thwaites, tell us why you never mention Brisbane's rejection of fluoridation. Their children's teeth are equal to Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.

The High Court of Australia has ruled that doctors must advise patients of any side-effects of prescribed medicine.

Why does the Victorian Government not follow that rule?

Science is secondary to the use of this wealthy commercial project of turning garbage (fluoride pollution) into gold.

There is a vast difference between what you, as the Minister, feed the public and actions by the Victorian Health Department.

Large coloured posters supplied by your Department seen outside dental rooms stating:

"THERE'S A BETTER WAY - SEAL YOUR CHILDREN'S TEETH AGAINST DECAY.' (Copy enclosed)

Are Victorian people expected to ignore sealants as PROPS for fluoridation?

The Great W.H.O. endorsement quoted so often records their chemical description of sodium silicofluoride:

The sodium silicofluoride pollutant used in Melbourne drinking water is described by the World Health Organization in their book -."Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans", as:

"an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide, a rodenticide (rat poison) to worm pigs, as an insecticide in, lawns, shrubs, carpeting, woollen fabrics." (All to kill).

Fluoride is also the important chemical in Sarin War Gas!

Under "Effects on intermediary metabolism," W.H.O. state:

"As in animals certain enzymes in human tissues are inhibited by fluoride."

This is what is called 'a natural product'. Medically speaking anyone forcing a community to drink an enzyme inhibitor is a danger to humanity.

As a final question - if fluoridation is SAFE and EFFECTIVE, why are we churning out more and more dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists, dental therapists, and building a new larger dental hospital, plus school dental clinics?

That is where your mythical $1 BILLION DOLLARS exists, not in children's teeth (Horsham Mail-Times).

We refer you to Hansard 1972-73 where the quality of political thinking on fluoridation is illustrated in the Fluoridation Act debate, the quality and correctness of which has not improved and the same entrenched line of fluoridation propaganda, minus science, cast in stone.

If the scientific advanced countries of Europe do not use fluoridation, there must be scientific reasons, or other reasons 'unknown' to the Victorian people why the Government force this mass medication against the wish of the people.

Every poll in Victoria has overwhelmingly rejected fluoridation which we consider is a message to those they elected to represent their wish and rights.

Are you against 'the will of the people" an expression of democracy?

Mr. Thwaites, if the above has been of no interest perhaps you may try the following for size.

There appears a political ploy to safeguard the next State election, a ploy serious enough to backfire on the Labour Party and you in particular.

(1) Firstly, you of all people should know the Victorian Fluoridation Act, 1 1 December, 1973, and the legal meaning of its content.

(2) Artificial Fluoridation is a mandatory LAW with a clearly defined PUNITIVE clause 10, 'those failing to comply ... shall be guilty of an offence against this act. Penalty - not less than $300 nor more than $1000, and daily penalty not exceeding $40 per day.'

You as Minister have failed in the enforcement of this Act of Parliament through your Department of Health. Why?

Bendigo had 7000 signatures on a petition to stop fluoridation, plus 350 letters and 87 telephone calls, all from a survey of 10,000 people.

Enforcing such an Act is failed by your predecessors and with a State Election looming, it appears you are also treading lightly on Election thin ice, and arranging false information to the people of Victoria.

You are thereby, in this instance, asked where in the Fluoridation Act does it delegate the meaning of the Act by the Minister, to a Manager of a Water Supply Authority.

Mr. McKern, CEO, Coliban Water Authority publically announced HIS decision to fluoridate Bendigo, but not Castlemaine because their community voted against fluoridated water for their citizens, publicly inferred that Bendigo citizens had no objection. Note: He did not say Bendigo people asked for fluoridation, but he claimed "with total support". (ABC News 13th June, 2002).

Bendigo had 7000 signatures to Coliban on a petition to stop fluoridation, plus 350 letters and 87 telephone calls, all from a survey of 10,000 people involved.

No data ever seen of those who made up 'with total support' to Mr. McKern.

Is this part of the Labour Party ploy?

Will you, as Minister, please show where this kind of action is covered in the Fluoridation Act, agree or disagree if it is honest political treatment of Victorian people?

The people of Victoria will become aware that each of the Water Trusts Managers is an appointee of the Victorian Labour Party, hoodwinking the people that Water Trust Managers such as Bendigo, are independent and acting in the interest and will of the people.

Geelong is going through this same charade, together with at least six other Cities in country areas, where Water Authorities are suggesting they are responsible for fluoridation.

Copies of this document will be widely circulated, but at least we will respect an escrow over the next 2 weeks.

Sincerely

(signed) Glen S.R. Walker, CHAIRMAN.

Reply by Minister for Health

6th Aug 2002

Mr G.S.R. Walker

157 New St.

BRIGHTON 3186

Dear Mr Walker

Thank you for your letter of 17 July 2002 about your concerns regarding fluoridation of Drinking water.

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) have undertaken a key review into the use of fluoride in drinking water and fluoride supplements. The paper "Review of Water Fluoridation Intake from Discretionary Fluoride Supplements" is available from the (NHMRC) web site www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/advice/pdfcover/flurcov.htm (see note). This review evaluated scientific data gathered since 1990 relating to the health effects of fluoridated water and fluoride from other sources. The NHMRC report concluded that water fluoridation continues to provide significant benefits in the prevention of dental caries, particularly in children but also in adults.

Note: This link is reported 'broken' (not available).

Water fluoridation is recommended by a number of national and international organisations including:

• the World Health Organisation,

• the Australian Medical Association,

• the Australian Dental Association and

• the Australian College of General Practitioners.

It remains an effective and important means of improving the dental health of the community, regardless of age, social or economic status, and which scientific evidence has shown to be safe.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) Hon John Thwaites MP Minister for Health.

The Anti-Fluoridation Association of Victoria

Educational, Non-Profit, Non-Sectarian, Non-Party Political, Facts Through Research.

Address all Correspondence to: BOX 935G, G.P.O., MELBOURNE, 3001.

14th August, 2002.

The Hon. John Thwaites M.L.A.,

Minister for Health,

357 Clarendon Street,

SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC. 3205

Dear Mr Thwaites.

Your letter 6th August, 2002 in reply to this Association's letter 17th July, 2002 on our official stationery, is acknowledged.

Writing to your file does not impress.

Your letter is addressed and posted to Mr. G.S.R. Walker, signed by me as Chairman of this Association.

We request an acknowledgement to our Association in correct responsible Government procedure for the 7 page official data on fluoridation, sent to you on behalf of The Anti-Fluoridation Association of Victoria.

The concern to our members relates to your failure to answer any of the matters on fluoridation clearly expounded in our official Association document.

Rather than answering our data, especially as you pose as a fluoridation expert, you make statements on fluoridation propaganda from the N.H. and M.R.C. quoting their, "Review of Water Fluoridation and Fluoride Intake from Discretionary Fluoride Supplements", obviously considering we would not have the temerity to question such an authority.

It is quite apparent that you have never read and studied the N.H. and M.R.C. article or else you are actively engaged in misleading the people of Victoria on the science of fluoridation.

We stated in our document to you 17th July, 2002, page 3, the N.H. and M.R.C. have failed in requests to show scientific proof of the safety of fluoridation, but you conveniently for your sake ignore that section of our document.

However, you do state, as a scientific fact, that the N.H. and M.R.C. "conclude" that fluoridation has "significant" benefits to adults.

This false claim was uncovered when this Association demanded scientific proof of the N.H. and M.R.C. claim of fluoridation benefits to adults.

You may know that by Defence Law, all Army, Navy, and Airforce personnel must drink only fluoridated water, and all Australian defence camps etc. are compulsorily fluoridated under the most questionable non-scientific nonsensical action, invented by the U.S.A. Defence force.

This Association questioned the health science and reason for such compulsory drugging of our Defence personnel from the Prime Minister down, and in 1988 arranged questions in Parliament Canberra, to the Minister of Defence, Mr. Beazley.

That Minister answered our questions giving the false impression that all matters on this subject were scientifically explained and adopted by the N.H. and M.R.C. at their 100th Session, November 1985.

Following that "official fluoridation claim" made in Parliament by Minister Beazley, this Association was unimpressed by the unscientific manner of an official answer to a most important matter of feeding troops with a daily dose of fluoride.

Obviously the answer was given relying upon everyone bowing in reverence to the highest health authority in Australia, with their health care expertise for the Health Department and indeed all Australian people including Army, Navy and Airforce personnel.

On 27th April, 1988 a letter from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Parliament House, Canberra stated:

"Mr Walker's objections to fluoridation of Defence Water Supplies, has been expressed in five previous representations. On each occasion, Department / Ministerial responses sought to satisfy his concerns."

The above is an indication of the difficulty involved in any discussion on fluoridation with politicians, and proffers the question relating to honest democracy in Australia, and Government by the Constitution.

The importance of this matter was finally answered "almost" in an honest manner.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Science and Personnel, the Hon. Ros Kelly M.P. wrote 17th September, 1987:

"In the Summary of Recommendations of the statement, the Council (N.H.&M.R.C.) 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."

From the above we consider it would be a brave or silly person claiming the N.H. and M.R.C. have scientific proof that fluoridation has a benefit for adults.

Once again, this Association confirms previous correspondence stating the N.H. and M.R.C. together with the World Health Organization continually make unsubstantiated claims that fluoridation is safe but cannot show the necessary scientific proof documented in a scientific procedure.

Both have failed as noted in our letter to you dated 17th July, 2002.

Your final paragraph scientifically fails in its claim of facts and answering our letter by one simple line of claims all without a skerrick of scientific evidence of proof.

You also use the following endorsers of safety and effectiveness:

"• the World Health Organization,

• the Australian Medical Association,

• the Australian Dental Association and

• the Australian College of General Practitioners."

Again, we identify this group as those doing NO original clinical, scientific fluoridation research, and just use each other as an endorsement, using their name to support fluoridation propaganda.

Your correspondence signposts a grave public concern when the Minister for Health is not interested in the FACT that, he not only promotes and endorses the use of a crude fluoride "UNREGISTERED" waste product collected in fertilizer factory exhaust chimneys for dumping in our drinking water.

You did not attempt to answer our data supplied in our 7 page document, as Minister this seems to us of paramount importance, together with the W.H.O description of the fluoride chemical added to Melbourne drinking water supplies:

"an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide, a rodenticide, (rat poison)" etc. etc. all to Kill!

No fluoride products designed for ingestion have ever been approved as safe or effective by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

U.S. E.P.A. 16 November 2000

In conclusion we express our concern that as Minister for Health, Victorian Government, you seriously failed your duty in not answering to the 50 items of health concern as stated in our document 17th July, 2002.

Sometimes politicians consider it their duty to consider other Countries in matters similar to fluoridation.

Maybe the latest news from Belgium should be considered.

The Belgium Minister of Health just announced the banning of sales of fluoride tablets, and has made application to the European Union nations to ban fluoride toothpaste.

Other overseas data should be considered, pardon us - we think it should!

"According to a November 16, 2000 letter from the U.S. E.P.A., 'to answer your question on whether we have in our possession empirical scientific data on the effects of fluorosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behaviour, the answer is no'."

"In the U.S.A., all fluoride products designed to be ingested (e.g. fluoride supplements) are available by prescription only. No fluoride products designed for ingestion have ever been approved as safe or effective by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."

"Most dental authorities are now conceding that there is little, if any, benefit from swallowing fluoride, and that fluoride's benefits (whatever they are) come from topical application."

"Hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are the chemicals used to fluoride 91% of fluoridated water in the US, have Never Been Tested for safety and effectiveness."

"98% of Western Europe Has Rejected Water Fluoridation. This includes Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. The predominant reason for Europe's rejection is the belief that public drinking water is NOT the appropriate vehicle with which to deliver medication to a population."

"Fluoride is Not An Essential Nutrient, which means that no human disease (including dental decay) has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. The fluoride used to fluoridate water is an industrial waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is an unprocessed hazardous waste, contaminated with a number of toxins, particularly arsenic."

"Fluoridation adds between 0.1 and 1.6 parts per billion (ppb) arsenic to drinking water, and therefore violates the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic - which is 0 ppb."

People in Victoria worry about such details questioning

fluoridation - Why not you?

Sincerely,

(signed) G.S.R. Walker, CHAIRMAN, THE ANTI-FLUORIDATION ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA.

Reply by Minister for Health

8th October, 2002.

Mr G.S.R. Walker

Chairman

The Anti Fluoridation Association of Victoria

GPO Box 9356

MELBOURNE 3001

Dear Mr Walker,

Thank you for your letter of 14 July 2002 about your concerns regarding fluoridation of drinking water and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

The NHMRC is Australia's peak medical research body. As such, it is appropriate for authorities to draw from its expertise in formulating and implementing public health policy.

As I stated in my previous correspondence to you, fluoridation remains an effective and important means of improving the dental health of the community, regardless of age, social or economic status, and which scientific evidence has shown to be safe.

Yours sincerely

(signed) Hon John Thwaites MP, Minister for Health.

This response by John Thwaites fails to address the scientific facts on fluoridation submitted by us to him as Minister for Health responsible to the people of Victoria.

The Minister even replied "to our letter of 14 July" which we did not send, our letter was 14 August!

You be the judge - in whom do you put your trust.

Not one scientific fact was answered!

Copy List