|
Copy List
PUBLIC DUPED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Evidence of harm and the democratic
rights of the people ignored.
Mr Killen: "Fluoridation is a completely
different approach to a medical problem from any that we ever had before. It
is unique. Never before has the State said to individuals, 'Here is
something which you take not to protect the people around you from disease
but because we the State consider this to be in your own good'.
"I venture to say that whenever we find
the notion that the State should be supreme in all matters we find being
laid the basis of a new and viable tyranny.
"I believe, and believe passionately, that
it is not the duty of the State to dose its people like cattle.
"Here I hold, we put in issue the
fundamental liberty of the individual, and no person should treat that as
being a light matter. In the frenzy to want to control and to regulate all
aspects of human affairs in a modern society it is tempting to want to
install ultimate State control over every form of human activity, I should
hope that the temptation would be resisted. For my part, I can think of no
more subtle form of imprisonment than for a people to be persuaded to
believe that their liberties are not in danger and that there is no need to
protect them.
"I submit with respect to the house that
fluoridation involves a consideration as to whether the State should have
the final say as to whether a particular substance is good or bad for you.
For my part the concept of the State being right under all circumstances was
something that I would attack again and again. I will have none of the
belief that the consideration of all the great qualities and institutions of
human society should be discarded as of no consequence."
Mr. Killen, House of Representative
Parliamentary Debates, Australian Capital Territory Water Supply, Hansard,
16 April 1964, pp. 1139-1142.
Mr D.J. Killen, Federal Member for
Queensland, was speaking to his motion to appoint a parliamentary select
committee to inquire into the advisability of introducing fluoride into the
water supply of the Australian Capital Territory, after Mr. Freeth, then
Minister for the Interior, had on 10th September 1963, approved the
introduction of fluorine into the water supply of Canberra. The ACT Advisory
Council had recommended to the Minister to fluoridate the supply, based on a
recommendation of a three person subcommittee.
Report recommending Fluoridation not
supported by evidence
Mr. Killen stated that:
"That report has been described
variously as being critical, exhaustive and extensive and as appraising
every known facet of fluoridation. Yet that sub-committee turned in a report
of only 124 words. Nobody would accuse it of being desperately long-winded.
Even Moses needed 319 words to set out the Ten Commandments. But this
subcommittee of the Advisory Council dealt with this great issue in five
paragraphs, or in 124 words.
"Each of the paragraphs represents a
proposition not supported by one skerrick of evidence. One of the paragraphs
dismisses in a nonchalant way, as though it did not exist, consideration of
the ethics involved in this matter. None of the paragraphs defeats or
repudiates in any comprehensible way the argument put forward by Hugo
Theorell, a Nobel Prize winner for bio-chemistry, who set out, among other
things, that fluorine is a potent and active inhibitor of various enzyme
systems. The sub-committee forgot about him. There is not a word about the
brilliant work of Oxford's Berry and Trillwood. There is not a word about
the monograph produced by Dr. Sutton. There is not a reference to Professor
Amies. There is not a reference to the dean of the faculty of dentistry in
Rome, Professor Benagiano. Am I to understand that the intellects of those
people have now become so utterly desiccated that they can be ignored as
though they did not exist and that argument is to be despised as though it
did not exist?
"We have this powerful, arresting,
forward-looking report of 124 words, which both the present Minister for the
Interior and the former Minister for the Interior have described in such a
lavish way. When the chairman of the sub-committee - the rapporteur -
produced its report, he said - referring to this elaborate piece of
quill-driving - "I am very sorry that copies of the report are not
available. Through inadvertence, they were left behind in the office."
''The rapporteur then made a speech on this
matter, loaded with propaganda and not supported by evidence that would do
credit to the mind and training of but a first-year law student. After he
had finished his obliging speech, he turned to the chairman of the Advisory
Council who accepted the report and said: "We have had enough discussion on
this matter. We will hear no more". Then, in a corner somewhere was an
obliging member of the Advisory Council who moved that the question be put.
That motion was seconded. A lady member of the Advisory Council was cut off
in her prime when she said, "There is some new evidence that I want to
submit". So the question was put and carried.
"Let us look at this powerful
sub-committees report. For a start, it contains only 124 words. There is a
touch of Moses on Mr. Sinai about this. If it were such an impressive
document, I venture to say that it would have been treated with all the
sensitivity of approach in the world How was it treated? Listen to the
raconteur of this sub-committee. He said -
I propose at the next meeting of the
Council to move a motion consequent upon this finding of the committee. I
must apologise for the tact that we have not copies of this report to
circulate to all members tonight They were typed, but by inadvertance they
were left in the office.
The Minister has a sense of humour. What
would Gilbert and Sullivan do with this incredibly Gilbertian situation and
with this powerful report of 124 words, to which the Minister clings like a
limpet? What would they do? I say that the report would be ridiculed. It
deserves to be ridiculed and it deserves to be rejected completely."
"I believe that if the responsibility for
dental care is left with the individuals, that is where it should properly
be left. If the philosophical concept is going to be that we should have a
totalitarian society in which matter the eating of sugar, the drinking of
alcohol, the driving of cars, indeed the doing of all sorts of things that
wreak havoc on the human body and to human society would be resolved and
settled according to the establishment of the day then, I say to those who
support that concept that, on every possible occasion, I will savage it and
give them no rest whatsoever, right through from Plato to Aquarius and Burk
and Mill the bask: proposition of all political endeavour has been the
relationship of the individual to the state, and that concept is as real
today as it was 1,000 and even 2,000 years ago.
"I do beg of the Minister to recognise that
in this matter the people of the ACT have a complete right, indeed a clear
right, to be treated as respectable, intelligent individuals and that they
should be given an opportunity to express their views on this matter in a
free and democratic way."
Dr Gibbs in seconding the motion, included
the statements:
"My reading shows quite definitely that,
with the present concentration of fluorine in the water supply, toxic
effects will ensue in some instances. What the incidences will be, no-one
knows.
"As I have said in previous speeches on
this matter, malnutrition is a factor. However, there are people who, for
medical reasons, will be malnourished even in this wonderful and prosperous
country. Consequently, this risk cannot be ignored. I say that the safety of
fluoridation has not been proven and that the dangers are such that this
matter must be resolved once and for all.*
"The nervous system undoubtedly is affected
by fluorides. The effects are severe and ghastly. Apart from the acute
effects which can be almost immediate in appearance, neurological symptoms
usually take 25 years to appear. This is recognised in places where it is
endemic. The fully developed picture is the horrible one of the paralysed
bedridden patient with no control over excretory functions.
"Fluorine has a profound effect on the
bones and ligaments. In fact, the earliest symptoms of fluorosis -always
vague - are usually manifested as low back pains. As the condition advances,
joints stiffen and the back and neck become rigid and immobile. The ribs
stiffen and interfere with the aeration of the lungs.
Hansard, pp 1142-1146, 16th April 1964.
Mr Gray referred to a letter from Dr Alfred
Taylor, a research scientist at the University of Texas. His letter stated -
"Our laboratory results demonstrated that
even though fluoride is given in trace quantities, its toxic qualities
become evident in susceptible mice which receive this drug in their drinking
water for most of their life span. Evidence for this was obtained in 12
experiments involving 645 mice. The average life span of mice drinking water
containing sodium fluoride as low as 1 ppm of fluorine, was 9 per cent less
than that of other animals treated and fed in an identical manner but
receiving nonfluoridated drinking water. Further, four of the mice drinking
fluoridated water developed urinary bladder stones, a condition never
encountered before in our mouse colonies. Since our work was completed, it
has been discovered in other laboratories that urinary bladder stones
removed from human patients have a higher concentration of fluoride...
"There is no precedence in medical
practical for subjecting a total population to even trace quantities of a
drug about as poisonous as arsenic. The human body is individual in its
reaction to drugs. A level of a drug which has no unfavourable effects on
one person may cause adverse reactions in another. There is no justification
in treating the young and the old, the sick and the well, for a lifetime
with a standard dose of a highly poisonous substance. Yet, that is what is
being done when fluorides are added to the city water supply."
Fluoride - free water supplied to
Fluoridation Promoter
"I have a letter from the Polar Water
Company, of Pittsburgh, where the water supply has been fluoridated for a
lengthy period. Who do you think buys water from this company, Mr Speaker?
It supplies water to one of the chief proponents of fluoridation of the
city's water supply - Dr. G.J. Cox, who is Professor of Dental Research at
the University of Pittsburgh. He was largely instrumental in having
fluoridation of the drinking water in that city adopted by the city council
on 26th November 1951. He is prepared to introduce fluoride into the
people's water supply, but he apparently will not drink it himself. The
second name on the list is, which contains 12 names, is Dr Jonas Salk, the
discoverer of the well known vaccine used in immunisation against
poliomyelitis. Apparently, he will not drink water from the public supply.
Why will he not?"
(G.J. Cox in fact was the first to make an
actual proposal for "fluoridisation" of water supplies in whole communities,
stating that "the prophylaxis could be applied in such a way that the
individual would be hard put to escape the treatment.."
See "Fluoridation The Great Dilemma", G.L.
Waldbott, p.65.)
The debate, on motion by Mr. Anthony,
adjourned. Hansard, pp. 1147-1155.
Fluoridation commenced in Canberra by
Press Statement while House Hobbled!
On 10th November 1964, fluoride was
added to Canberra's water supply while the debate on fluoridation in Federal
Parliament was adjourned and on the approval of the Minister for Interior,
Mr Anthony, by a Press statement.
On 18th March 65, Mr Killen moved a
parliamentary motion that the citizens of Canberra have a right to say
whether or not they want fluoridation of their water supply and that a
referendum be held. Mr Killen stated:
"I thought that surely by now it would be
clear, even to the most mule like individual in the community, that on every
occasion when this matter is raised people want to silence it. They want to
silence it either by raising a smear or raising an argument which, frankly,
could not be described as respectable.
"This House had before it an adjourned
motion and no member could ask a question on any matter relating to the
adjourned debate. In other words, the House was hobbled on the issue and
what happened? The Minister for the Interior (Mr Anthony) went outside and
issued a Press statement. Let me state without ambiguity that if there is
any business before this House on which the House is properly entitled to
hear a statement, the statement should be made in this House and not outside
the House. That is my conviction and I am prepared to perish with it,
politically or in any other way.
"Let me turn to this powerful Press
statement issued by the honourable gentleman, snubbing this Parliament - a
statement issued outside in the paddock to the crows, and other birds and to
the pussy cats which are still giggling.
"The metabolism of fluoride in the body
briefly is as follows: Fluoride is absorbed from the digestive system and/or
the lungs, completely and rapidly in the case of sodium fluoride, and it is
absorbed incompletely and more slowly in the case of calcium fluoride and
other naturally occurring compounds. From here it reaches the blood stream,
and some is excreted by the kidneys and in sweat. The remainder is stored in
the body, exclusively in the body structure of the young, but increasingly
in the soft tissues - particularly in the kidneys, liver and heart, as the
individual ages..
"Here let me quote from the 'Archives of
Industrial Health', April, 1960 - 'It is firmly established that fluoride
accumulates in the bones of the skeleton and in the teeth. This physiologic
fact explains the older concept which leads to the designation of fluoride
as a "cumulative poison". This concept is supported and confirmed by recent
observations experimentally induced fluoride intoxication in experimental
animals.
"The amount we absorb from a given water
supply depends, first, upon the nature of the fluoride compound -almost all
sodium fluoride would be absorbed, but a great deal of calcium fluoride
would not - and, secondly, upon the amount of the water which is drunk. The
amount of water drunk varies within enormous limits. Some of the factors
involved are individual habit, climate and state of health. For this reason
fluoridation of a public water supply is unscientific. At a level of one
part per million, one individual would receive only half a milligram,
whereas another would receive ten milligrams or more. This does not take
into account the unknown quantity absorbed from the atmosphere and from
food. Tea and fish, for example, have a very high fluoride content.
"It is incontrovertible that fluorides
accumulate in the body. I believe that they exert a toxic effect upon many
of the tissues. Dental fluorosis is evidenced by mottling of the teeth. When
a tooth is developing, cells known as ameloblasts lay down the enamel
coating of the teeth. Fluorine produces mottling by its toxic action upon
the ameloblast, whereby its normal function is interfered with."
"I cannot and will not subscribe to this
sort of State paternalism in any circumstances or under any threat. I can
think of no better way for public issues to be settled than by open and
public discussion. The assumption or the right to determine what is good and
what is bad in every respect for the individual is a philosophy I deeply
despise and I will on every possible occasion attack it attack it and attack
it again."
"The Minister then said, 'There is no
evidence at all that fluoridation is harmful'. With great respect to the
honourable gentleman this is not so." (Mr Killen had previously referred to
inquiries by Berry and Trillwood, Dr Sutton and Professor Amies, amongst
others.)
In seconding the motion to hold a select
committee inquiry, Dr Gibbs stated that:
"I am no believer in State paternalism,
that my first introduction to sodium fluoride was as a cockroach killer and
that such arguments on the safety of fluorine as I have read fail to
convince me.
Mr Wentworth and Mr Turner also spoke
supporting a referendum.
The motion to hold a referendum was put,
the House divided and the motion was carried.
Hansard, pp. 117-124,18th March 1965.
The next day, on 19th March 1965, The
Canberra Times, in its leading front page article stated:
"The House's decision has embarrassed
and perplexed the Government, gladdened the hearts of opponents of
fluoridation in Canberra and angered those who thought that when fluoride
went into the water supply on September 10 last year, the issue had been
disposed of forever."
Government Defeated
The defeat of the Government on the floor
of the House was one of the few major defeats of the Government. A member of
the ACT Advisory Council, Mr R.P. Greenish, said the original decision to
introduce fluoride was an act of supreme dictatorship, typical of the
disregard shown by the administration for the individual citizen.
However, despite this defeat, the Cabinet
ignored the vote of Parliament and did not hold a referendum of the people
of the ACT.
In adopting this extraordinarily
dictatorial attitude, the Government followed to the letter one of the
dictates of the USA Public Health Service propounded by Dr Frank Bull, top
fluoridation spokesman, U.S. Federal Government:
"If you can - I say, if you can, because
five times we have not been able to do it - keep fluoridation from going to
a referendum." Proceedings Fourth
Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with The Public Health Service
and The Children's Bureau, June 6-8, 1951, Federal Security Building,
Washington D.C.
In the same way, to prevent the public
knowing the truth and to avoid the normal processes of law which uphold the
will of the people, the Australian Government renamed fluoride toothpaste
from a S5 poison to a cosmetic, to avoid showing the "POISON" label on
toothpaste tubes, and the American Government cleverly renamed the
Guantanamo Bay inmates as "enemy combatants" as opposed to prisoners of war
to avoid human rights conventions.
On 13th May 1965, in answer to a question
on notice from Mr Bryant, Mr Anthony advised that the quantity of sodium
silicofluoride required to treat the water supply was between 35 and 4O tons
per annum, compared to 21 kilograms required id provide fluoride tablets to
all children in Canberra up to and including the age of 12.
Hansard, p. 1544.
So a wastage rate of 99.95% provided a
wonderful disposal method for a toxic waste by-product.
(Extracts only of speeches, due to space
limitations.)
Copy List
|
