UPDATED

02 MAR 06

Copy List

The Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth

Blowing the top off Fluoridation Myths

By Glen S.R. Walker, F.I.M.F., E.M.E.C.S.

The missing link in Australian Democracy - "a level playing field controlled under the above"!

Perhaps the truth of fluoridation is clearly defined in the words of two senior dental professionals.

(1) The President of the Australian Dental Association is quoted in the Tasmanian Advocate 2001:

"Tasmania is in a dental crisis." (Tasmania fluoridated 50 years).

(2) The West Australian reported the following statement by Don Wilson, Chairman, Australian Dental Association:

"Don Wilson said man* parents had been lulled into a false sense of security about the protection of fluoridated water."

The West Australian 24th July 2004 published an article:

"Children's teeth spoilt rotten"

"Toddlers as young as one are having general anaesthetics to remote or crown rotten teeth." (Perth was fluoridated 37 years ago!)

Jumping further to 3rd July, 2005. The Sydney Daily Telegraph 3rd July, 2005 printed an article on fluoridation under a large, indeed very large heading:

DECAYING STATE OF TEETH IN CHILDREN

(2005)

The first paragraph explains the full article:

"Tooth decay in children is going untreated because of 'false security' provided by water fluoridation, according to one of the State's leading dental experts."

"Figures revealed in a parliamentary inquiry into NSW dental services last week show a 58 per cent rise in hospitalisations of children under five for dental decay.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare research, which tracked decay for the 15 years to 2003, revealed an 80 per cent rise in hospitalisations for children aged five to 14.

During the same period there was a 55 per cent rise in the number of adult hospitalisations for tooth decay.

"People should be alarmed because what it means is our ability to treat oral disease and dental decay is falling," said Associate Professor Hans Zoellner of the Westmead Centre for Oral Health.

Although the introduction of fluoride in the water supply in 1957 dramatically reduced tooth decay, he said it had caused parents to believe young children did not have tooth problems any more.

"People have developed a false sense of security; there is all this fluoride in the water and the kids are fine" Professor Zoellner said.

"It is certainly true that compared with previous generations we have much better teeth, but there is still a fake sense of security there."

*The most common treatments are for advanced decay and really severe tooth breakdown to the extent where multiple extractions of root stumps with serious infection are necessary.

"In any major hospital each year there would be at least six hospitalisations for adults who have a life threatening oral infection"

Community oral health expert at Sydney University, Associate Professor Wendell Evans, said fluoride had prevented tooth decay in the majority of children.

However, the 20 per cent of children with tooth decay are in the high risk category for serious problems.

"Tooth decay is a social disease and the people with all the tooth decay are at the bottom of the pile" he said.

"That is where we need to have dentists providing intensive high concentrated fluoride"

Professor Zoellner said more people were being hospitalised because they were neglecting treatment for tooth decay at the early stages.

Professor Zoellner said Australia is heading for a chronic shortage of dentists because of a lack of incentives to enter the public system, to teach in universities or to set up private practices in vital rural areas"

This was followed by another article in the Daily Telegraph, 6th July, 2005.

"Huge cavities in dental care"

"The NSW dental health system is in crisis and requires a huge funding increase from the State Government, a parliamentary inquiry heard yesterday.

The inquiry conducted by a parliamentary committee, was established in April to examine dental services in NSW.

The NSW Council of Social Services told the inquiry that waiting lists for basic procedures were as long as four years in some areas.

The Council said funding needed to be increased from $120 million to at least $270 million and preferably $700 million a year/' (Emphasis added)

"The Truth and only the Truth" is set aside when dentists unscientifically try to continue their non-scientific sales talk about fluoridation when documents after documents display the absolute failure of fluoridation and the misinformation built up within dental claims.

With the above Sydney State Government Report, consider the Victorian Human Services booklet distributed May, 2005 throughout Gippsland, by post with a personalised letter and Health Department Booklet which states (page 2):

"Water fluoridation is the most effective way to give everybody access to the benefits of fluoride regardless of age, income or education."

So there really is no such thing as expressed by Professor Wendell Evans, Sydney University, who stated, "the 20% of children with tooth decay are in high-risk category for serious problems."

One may ask what that means and exactly who and why are these "high-risk children", not receiving the great dental-decay protection that is the main propaganda of dentists as per the Victorian Health Department statement above, and repeated over and over again when addressing the matter to a community of innocent and trusting people.

The Whole Truth

The Sydney Morning Herald, 15th and 16th February, 2005 devoted front pages on the failure of artificial fluoridation in Sydney and its suburbs.

The documented data completely and utterly destroy the dental propaganda that fluoridation has benefits for all people, especially the poor and disadvantaged.

Sydney Morning Herald front page 15 February 2005:

"DENTAL CRISIS EXPOSES GREAT DIVIDE" "Something is rotten with our state inequality. Studies by the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council show that children in poorer groups now have twice as many rotten teeth as those in wealthy groups"

The Sydney children in Western Suburbs generally have bad teeth but those in Eastern and Northern Suburbs have generally good teeth.

THEY ALL DRINK THE SAME FAMOUS FLUORIDATED WATER

The Head of the Australian Dental Association, Ross King, was reported in the Herald Editorial as saying that:

"The challenge therefore is to get more dentists into the public system."

The reality is that, after Sydney fluoridation 37 years, fluoridation is proven a failure, and we need more dentists.

Consider the scientific and intellectually dishonest fluoridation environment presented by the pushers.

Fluoridation has resulted in more dentists, new and larger dental hospitals, and dentists now recorded as being in the highest professional income bracket.

Not too bad for an industry put out of business because fluoridation has stopped tooth decay!

Medical Ethics Ignored

Australian people should not become human waste disposal units for toxic waste from foreign fertiliser lactones, unable to dump their toxic fluoride chemicals anywhere

except in our drinking water supplies, with of course the compliments of our Parliaments filled with "responsible" people you voted into positions of trust under a Parliamentary Constitutional decree.

The following expressed medical truth that never finds a skerrick of place in compulsory fluoridation which is mass medication of the whole community.

The Australian Medical Association's Code of Ethics states:

"Every patient has the right to expect a complete and thorough examination into his condition and that accurate records will be kept"

Were you ever medically examined by a doctor and the "medicine, fluoridated water scientifically and medically explained as perfectly safe and in short-term and long-term ingestion there will be no side effects, only decay free teeth!!!

Fluoride retention in body

The same "doctor" will know that half the fluoride you ingest from fluoridated water will be retained in your body. He should know that the fluoride retention is controlled by kidney function which the doctor should also know that with age and some disease, the kidney function decreases resulting in a higher percentage of ingested fluoride being retained in the body.

With such world-wide acceptance, medical kidney knowledge, especially documented in the evidence by world renowned kidney specialists at the Fluoridation Court Case at the High Court of Edinburgh 1980 (where fluoridation was declared illegal), it is impossible to understand why Australian Hospitals and Doctors "DO NOT EXAMINE PATIENTS BLOOD FOR FLUORIDE DETERMINATIONS."

If they use as an excuse, "it does not matter for the health of the patient" perhaps we go back to the EXPERT KIDNEY SPECIALIST'S evidence at the Edinburgh Court Case 1980.

In Lord Jauncey's official ""Opinion" (page 260) he refers to this particular and important matter of retention of fluoride throughout life.

"However, when renal function is impaired there will come a time when the kidneys will no longer excrete the amount of fluoride which is being ingested with the result that plasma fluoride level rises and excess fluoride is deposited in the blood.

This situation arises when renal function is reduced to 20% and retention of fluoride increases progressively as renal function further decreases.

When renal function is reduced to 10%, serious retention is likely.

Renal failure perse can cause certain bone diseases which are generally described as renal osteodystrophy. It is probable tfiaf such bone diseases start when renal function is reduced to one third, a level at which an imbalance of fluoride intake and output will not have occurred,"

Rather disturbing when it is known that human blood and bone is not tested for fluoride in Australian Hospitals or referrals by doctors.

Increase of Cancer Deaths in Fluoridated Cities of U.S.A.

There seems a medical fluoride hidden agenda - DO NOT TOUCH.

Court Cases where witnesses are cross examined "under oath" usually uncover false scientific statements. The evidence of false statements is of benefit only if openly made public.

Without doubt the greatest fluoridation Research ever performed and documented was by Drs. D. Burk and John Yiamouyiannis (B. & Y.) in their Cancer-Fluoride paper showing the increase of Cancer Deaths in fluoridated cities of the U.S.A.

Such panic arose never seen before in Medical History. Every dirty trick in Medical History was employed to discredit the "B. & Y." study. Those involved were reduced to the greatest intellectually dishonest conduct, which was corrected in Courts of Law in different countries and so remains today, but not in the Public Arena!

Their attack on the B. & Y. Cancer results was a world­wide coordinated rejection of the Cancer-fluoride findings by expressing in a strong emotional manner that B. & Y. had "not made adjustments in their study for age, race, sex"

Scientists world wide joined in this false scientific accusation, being enjoined by Australian Health Departments, A.M.A. and A.D.A.; it almost followed the infamous Nazis, Joseph Goebbels, who once stated in 1940 "that the German propaganda must arrive under full protection", tell the lie until it becomes the truth!

Returning to the High Court of Edinburgh, this serious false Cancer-Fluoride propaganda was again put to rest.

The following transcription of the Evidence, June 11, 1981:

"McColl v. Strathclyde, Court of Session, Edinburgh June 11 1981, Process paper, page 3804, para. c.

Mr. Malcolm Morison, Q.C. cross examined Prof. Newell. Reference: the Pittsburgh Case.

Mr. Morison: 'And you say that you were not aware, in spite of giving evidence in that case, that Dr. Yiamouyiannis put forward an age, race and sex adjustment of s.m.r.? (standard mortality rates).

Prof. Newell: 'I don't think that I was.'

Mr. Morison: 'The general point which I am making to you is this; that you gave the impression in 256 and 257 of process that In the first place Burk and Yiamouyiannis had ignored the question of race which as we have seen they didn't; and in the second place that they never made any adjustment based on age, race and sex. Don't you agree that that is the impression which you convey by the documents to which I have referred?

Prof. Newell: 'Yes, I would think so.'

Mr. Morison: 'And would that impression be wholly misleading. . .?

Prof. Newell: 'It was not my intention to mislead and I have already pointed out the context in which these papers were given/ Mr Morison: 'It is quite untrue to say is it not, that Burk and Yiamouyiannis made no adjustments?' Prof. Newell: Yes, I admit I was wrong. I admitted this yesterday"

Professor David Newell

Head of Medical Statistics

University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

Director Health Care Research Unit.

The Whole Truth

The Victorian Hamer (Government) Committee of Inquiry into Fluoridation of Victoria Water Supplies 1979-1980 stated in their Report page 116, 12.23 that:

"The Link Between Fluoridation and Cancer Report p.116 12.23:

The Committee cited the conclusion of Oldham and -- Newell (1977):

"We have established that the association claimed by Burk and Yiamouyiannis between fluoridation and cancer has not been substantiated. We concur with the statement by the Royal College of Physicians in Fluoride, Teeth and Health, that there was no evidence that fluoride increases cancer mortality."

FACT: This was stated although it had been pointed out to the Committee that there were errors in the data used in that study. This fact is confirmed in a letter from Oldham. Letter from Oldham and Newell to Editor of Applied Statistics, 28 (2) 184, 1979:

"It should be made clear that our responsibility was-to provide an independent appraisal of the data and information given to us by the R.C.P. not to initiate a search for further data. The data received by us from the R.C.P. had been provided by the National Cancer Institute, and it emerged that in extracting this data, transcription errors were made." (Emphasis added)

Errors by Oldham and Newell, NOT errors by Burk and Yiamouyiannis!

The Hamer Committee reported to Victorian Parliament their scientific concurrence with the book by The Royal College of Physicians 1976, especially that the Royal College's statement in their book that: "There was no evidence that fluoride increases cancer mortality in Birmingham since 1964 and their reference, Professor Leo Kinlen, Royal College of Physicians and Oxford University."

The Hamer Victorian Committee made so many erroneous scientific and indeed practical issues that I wrote a 460 page book - Fluoride Poison on Tap, showing all the errors including their acceptance of the Royal College of Physicians book on Fluoridation.

The Public Deceived

The following data on the above Birmingham Cancer study by Professor Kinlen illustrates the plausible manner in which they deceive the people.

"The Pittsburgh Court Case 1978

Evidence of Professor Kinlen

Let us go back to the Pittsburgh Court Case, and discover what happened when Professor Leo Kinlen of the Royal College of Physicians and Oxford University, was called to the witness stand and gave the following evidence under oath on 11th May, 1978 (Transcript of Proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Ellegheny Country, Pennsylvania - Civil Division). Discussing his paper "Cancer Incidence in Relation to Fluoride Level in Water Supplies'", (p. 10), Dr Kinlen testified on oath:

Question to Kinlen: And what was the finding or the ultimate result of that Study?

Answer by Kinlen: We could find no relationship between cancer incidence and fluoride level.

Question: Now as a result of that 1975 Study that you did in England and in Wales, can you testify with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty as an epidemiologist, based on your 1975 Study, that there was - let me re-phrase it this way - that fluoride caused cancer, fluoride in the water caused cancer?

Answer: There was no evidence.

Question: No evidence? Could you testify as an expert epidemiologist based on your 1975 Study that your Reports showed an association between the fluoridation in water and cancer?

Answer: There was no association.

Question: Was there anything else significant about that particular 1975 Study?

Answer: No, it was entirely negative.

Later on in the cross examination on Kinlen's 1975 Study recorded on p. 35 of the Court Transcript, Attorney Craham asked Dr. Kinlen:

"And so the figure that we derived from the left-hand column, representing the fluoridated areas is 1.03 and the figure that we derived from the right-hand column is reflecting the non-fluoridated areas 0.98.

And there is a difference of .05 between the two, or approximately five percentage points. Is that correct?

Answer by Dr. Kinlen: Yes

Question: And does not that indicate then, that for the sites actually included in table 2 the fluoridated areas appeared to have five per cent higher cancer incidence rates than the non-fluoridated areas?

Answer by Dr. Kinlen: Yes"

So the public do not get the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth from responsible scientific, medical and political people in positions of trust.

This information was pointed out to the Hamer Committee a number of times in order to encourage them into reporting this to the Victorian Government, because Kinlen's Paper had been used by the Premier of Victoria and his Ministers in correspondence and public statements as an endorsement for fluoridation and proof of its safety.

Although there is no evidence that the Committee possessed, or examined the full Transcript from Pittsburgh Court, they have acknowledged receiving from the Author all the testimony associated with Professor Kinlen, and therefore cannot plead ignorant of its important contents.

Safety of the People Paramount

In his summation of the scientific evidence, presented to the Pittsburgh Court, Attorney Graham said:

'The great James Oils, whom we remember as the father of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, gave us also a remarkable maxim of equity of particular relevance in this case. The words attributed to him are 'the safety of the people is the law of God'."

Part of the Court summation reads as follows with reference to Professor Leo Kinlen and his evidence under oath:

"The next witness, in logical order, who sought to impeach the work of Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis, was Dr. Leo Kinlen of Oxford University in England. After being qualified as a physician and epidemiologist, he testified concerning his article entitled "Cancer Incidence in Relation to Fluoride Level in Water Supplies." 138. Brit. Dental Journal, 221 (1975), marked and introduced as Exhibit I, which he claimed, showed no association between fluoride and drinking water and cancer incidence. See Transcript, May 11, 1978, pp. 3-11. On cross-examination, Dr. Kinlen acknowledged that his Table I was a static comparison, not involving artificial fluoridation, therefore making it impossible to determine what happened before and after the introduction of fluoride; moreover, he used much smaller population groups than those represented by the Basic Curve. See Transcript, May 11, 1978 pp. 20-22. Dr. Kinlen also was forced to concede I that his Table II showed a 5% excess of cancer incidence in fluoridated over non-fluoridated areas for the sites considered, a rate comparable to what Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis found in their 1977 Study. See Transcript, May 11, 1978, pp. 22-31. And while critical of Drs Burk and Yiamouyiannis for supposedly not adjusting properly for demographic variables, Dr. Kinlen had to admit that his Table III in Exhibit L compared crude cancer rates, not adjusted for race and sex. See Transcript, May 11, 1978, p. 32." (Fluoridation Poison on Tap).

The Whole Truth?

Atmospheric Fluoride Pollution

The Victorian Government Inquiry into Fluoridation contains an interesting piece of serious misinformation relative to atmospheric fluoride pollution. They stated:

"Most susceptible plants can tolerate up to 100 ppm (parts per million) HP." (Hydrogen Fluoride) Chapter 6, p. 17. 6.17.

The Victorian Government Committee use as a reference to their data - U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C. 1971 using the prefix "Vostal J.J. et.al." (Dr. Vostal was Chairman of the Committee that wrote the Report).

Making personal contact with Dr. J. Vostal in the U.S.A. it was discovered the U.S. National Academy of Sciences data is:

"The threshold for susceptible plants is about 0.5 ug/m³ H.F. which is 0.58 parts per billion, 172,413 times less than Myers Plueckham and Rees printed in their Report to the Victorian Government erroneously claiming it was also the findings of scientists in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and confirmed in their 1971 Report on Fluorides."

This susceptibility of plants to air pollution with fluorides has been confirmed by other studies, such as those by W.G. Greenhalgh, G.S. Brown and D.S. Horning Jr., Accumulation of airborne fluoride in leaf lamina of the grape cultivar semillon, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science, University of Sydney, NSW.

The study showed the leaves of the Semi I loo grape vine at concentrations of hydrogen ftuoride in the air of 0.22 pg rn produced visible injury to the grape leaves. Injury occurred at less than half the concentration of HF which caused injury quoted from the earlier U.S. National Academy of Sciences data. This was one of a series of studies carried out in the early 1980's for the NSW State Pollution Control Commission, to determine the impact on grape vines of the fluoride pollution expected from a proposed aluminium smelter and from coal fired power stations in the major wine producing areas of the Hunter Valley.

There is an endless continuity of fluoridation mythical mesmeric data attempting to salvage any possible credibility of the process and its promoters, an impossible result under our caption, The Truth the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth.

Waste Industrial Chemicals used for Fluoridation

An interesting example of published "scientific medical data on fluoridation" is found on page 81, of the famous work, Fluoride Teeth and Health by The Royal College of Physicians of London. Most pages recommend fluoridation even though as Physicians they seem unaware of the prescribed material even though in the final page of their "scientific"! presentation they announce:

"the fluoride added to water supplies would be derived from sources that would otherwise have been discharged to the sea as waste."

Thanks to the R.C.P. for making such an honest statement at the end of their book.

They confirmed way back in 1976 that the fluoride chemicals added to drinking water supplies are waste industrial chemicals.

The Truth, the Whole Truth Nothing But The Truth.

Council Misinformed to Promote Fluoridation

On 4th March, 1985 the Moree Council invited Dr. Joyce Ford and Professor Noel Martin to address the Council on Fluoridation.

Dr. Ford, N.S.W. Government Health Department specialising in Cancer data, told the open Council Meeting that:

". . . Dr. Tony McMichael and Dr. John Potter of the Division of Human Nutrition of CSIRO, two cancer epidemiologists, have done studies into diet and cancer in Australia and they have not at any time shown any relationship between fluoridation of water supplies and cancer, excess cancer or the development of any of the cancers." (Transcribed from a recording of her address to Moree Council 4th March, 1985.)

After Dr. Ford and Professor Martin concluded their address on the benefits as per their claims, the Moree Council voted to fluoridate Moree drinking water supplies.

This information, especially from Dr. J. Ford representing the NSW Government, was of great interest to the Australian Fluoridation movement and contrary to any such scientific, medical and cancer data in their possession.

On 10 May 1985 a letter was sent to Dr. J.P. Wild, Chairman, CSIRO Canberra including the above statement by Dr. Joyce Ford to Moree Council 4th March 1985. The Australian Fluoridation movement questioned Dr. Ford's claims and asked Dr. Wild if the statement involving the CSIRO and its two senior scientists were true and if so please supply copy of the research.

On 27 May 1985, the Chairman of CSIRO, Dr. J.P. Wild replied as follows:

"Dr. Ford is correct in saying that Drs. McMichael and Potter are cancer epidemiologists with CSIRO and that they have never discovered any link between fluoride and cancer. However, it should also have been pointed out in this context that they have never undertaken studies designed to identify whether or not such a link exists." (Emphasis added)

"You have suggested that the Moree Plains Shire Council be informed of these views. I would be happy for you to pass a copv of this letter to the Council. I have also forwarded copies to Dr. Ford, Dr. McMichael and Dr. Potter for information."

The reply, however, proves Dr. Ford misinformed Moree Council on behalf of the NSW Government but it was a mouthful of words to mean she has told a lie in the interest of promoting fluoridation.

Dr. John Potter, Senior Research scientist, also replied in the same manner - 7 May 1985.

"Thank you for your letter of May 3rd for identifying the source of misinformation. What was said by Dr. Ford is absolutely true - that we have found no link between fluoride and cancer - but she neglected to mention that we have never looked for such a relationship either. We have no plans at present to work in this area of research." (Emphasis added)

A letter of complaint was sent to the NSW Government and they replied that the Australian Fluoridation movement had misunderstood what Dr. Ford had said.

So another fluoridation promotion completed in the usual manner and its misinformation ignored and covered up by the NSW Government.

The "problem", in any category of human action you wish to decide.

Motive of Professionals who sell their honour to promote fluoridation

What motivates the actions of mostly professional people who sell their honour in promotion of fluoridation, a scientific-medical failed concept, but a successful industrial profitable organisation.

Your answer; one can ask the question, but for obvious reasons you must only just surmise the real answer!!!

"The Boston Herald, 28th June, 2005 report that an official complaint has been filed against a Professor Douglass, Harvard School of Dental Medicine for 'Fudged fluoride findings'."

It appears Dr Douglass was given a large grant "possibly more than $1 million" by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to research whether there is a link between fluoride and bone cancer in boys, the non­profit group alleges.

One of his doctoral students, Dr. Elise Bassin, did an extensive study that found a link between fluoridated tap water and bone cancer in adolescent boys the group said.

Douglass was the lead adviser on her doctoral thesis and signed off on her research, the group claim.

Despite the student's findings, Douglass told federal health officials in his grant report that there is no correlation, according to the group.

Bassin's research has never been published and access is restricted to Harvard, the group stated.

Douglass is the Editor-in-Chief of the Colgate Oral Care Report, a newsletter that goes to dentists and is supported by toothpaste manufacturer Colgate Palmolive.

It was announced 1st July, 2005 that the Harvard School of Dental Medicine will launch an investigation into the work of one of its faculty members.

The facts of fluoridation misinformation continue to appear, unrestricted, without censorship by responsible Governments and their officials, drawing attention to the above question of WHY so devoted to fluoride?

Dentistry - A profession of scientific Pretence in the Fluoridation Fraud

Dentistry is a profession of scientific pretence when engulfed in the fluoridation fraud, data recorded in the book by Philip Sutton - The Greatest Fraud - Fluoridation, and the author holding a rare academic degree of Doctor of Dental Science compared with today's users of Doctor without any academic qualification for the use of such a distinguished title.

It's part of the pretence game!

The Truth?

How can the Australian Governments, their Health Departments, their Ministers of Health, the A.M.A. and A.D.A., honestly and indeed medically allow and promote the addition of toxic poisonous fluoride waste pollutants from fertiliser factories to be purposely added to drinking water supplies and compulsively force every person to ingest a daily drugging of fluoride?

This is subjected to the knowledge of all concerned that none of the added fluoride chemicals are licensed or registered as safe in drinking water supplies for humans.

That is all such a simple factor of Health Care that conjures up questions of universal importance as to what is the hidden agenda of such unlimited money, manpower and even teaching to promote a proven failed medical, dental and political concept not wanted by "the people", but glorified under the undemocratic banner of anti-constitutional rules of Government which encompasses and supposedly controls all medical and moral activities in the paramount interest of "The People"?

Conclusion

Our conclusion is based on three main events.

(1) The 1945 Nuremberg Court that documented the most democratic, medical and moral stand that:

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment."

Compulsory fluoridation does not meet one iota of that message to the world from the Nuremberg Court Case against human experimentation without the consent of the individual.

(2) The Ethical Criteria By The World Health Organization

"Ethical criteria for drug promotion (fluoridation) should lay a foundation for proper behaviour concerning the promotion of medical drugs consistent with the search for Truthfulness and Righteousness." (W.H.O. 1988)

(3) The Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code

"All promotion-making claims concerning medicinal drugs (fluoridation) should be reliable, accurate, truthful, informative, balanced, up to date, capable of substantiation, and in good taste. They should not contain misleading or unverifiable statements or omissions likely to induce medically unjustifiable drug use or give rise to undue risks."

Is it possible the Great Potentates will "discover" a way to exempt fluoridation in a similar manner in which the N.H.M.R.C. changed the S5 Poison rating on fluoride toothpaste by changing its classification and calling fluoride toothpaste "a Cosmetic" thereby exempting it from carrying a warning S5 poison identification on every tube of toothpaste.

The poison still exists but the warning 55 Poison disappeared for "the purpose of sales regulations" (N.H. and M.R.C. The Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation p. 131)

Don't go to Wimbledon for tennis - there are more rackets around our Health Regulations.

Copy List