|
Mar/Apr 2001: Glen Walker
THE U.K. GOVERNMENT YORK REVIEW ON FLUORIDATION
by Glen S.R.Walker
DISCLAIMER
The claim by the
'U.K. GOVERNMENT YORK REVIEW ON FLUORIDATION' that fluoridation reduces tooth
decay by about 15% is based on poor evidence which has either been contrived or
poorly arrived at. This website therefore disowns the claim of a '15%
benefit' as being unjustifiable, dishonest and very possibly due to parties with
vested interests using political pressure to protect a measure with no
credibility. Please read the
BRIEF ANALYSIS OF YORK REVIEW (July-Aug, 2001 edition) for further details.
Who are the real
beneficiaries of Fluoridation?
Not children, nor adults, not
the population at large Fluoridation is a commercial, industrial "invention" to
rid poisonous fluoride waste pollution from fertiliser factories, clearly
indicating who is the real beneficiary. The latest Fluoridation "Final" Review,
October 2000 at York University on behalf of the UK Government, signposts that
the beneficiaries are not the people. The fluoridation commercial invention
enjoys the world's greatest ever financial protection, not to be confused with
medical, dental, or pharmaceutical fundamentals of science. Perhaps the correct
classification of fluoridation, medical, dental and political, is encapsulated
in the title of the book, "The Greatest Fraud ? Fluoridation", by the late Dr.
Philip R.N. Sutton, D.D.Sc., L.D.S., F.R.A.C.D.S., Formerly Academic Associate
and Senior Research Fellow Dental School, University of Melbourne. That book was
his fourth book on fluoridation.
The York Review established
that fluoridation dental hype is unacceptable exaggerated junk science, and at
that date, October 2000, still no acceptable scientific evidence of safety and
effectiveness was found. The Review Study found most dental fluoridation data
of a low scientific standard. Truth seemed to surface from the water? Who
are the beneficiaries of fluoridated water? From where does all the huge finance
originate? Where does its pathway of scientific deception meander worldwide, and
who handles it accordingly? The only situation for the people to become a
beneficiary of fluoridation would be a politically democratic action on behalf
of the people, and immediately stop fluoridation in Australia. Otherwise the
beneficiary is back to square one, the fertiliser factories, and their
associated promoters. The fluoridation straw houses rely upon trusted important
organisations such as The World Health Organisation (W.H.O.), the Australian
National Health and Medical Research Council (N.H. & M.R.C.), The Australian
Medical Association (A.M.A.), and politicians of all persuasions throughout
Australian Parliaments, Health Departments and their Ministers, their
bureaucrats, and selected Committees overseeing fluoridation.
Not one of the above can
produce scientific evidence proving safety and effectiveness of fluoridation for
all people. Careful consideration should be observed, that safety and
effectiveness must not be separated. These organisations must know something
privy only to themselves as a group, and carefully protected from public
scrutiny, otherwise on the available scientific evidence, they should stop
fluoridation. One elderly scholar suggested fluoridation and is disciples fall
into the following class:
"If you don't know
anything about a subject, write about it, and if you don't know anything about
a matter, teach it!"
The apathy of Australian people
is beyond belief, when they allow politicians to proceed with compulsory mass
medication through fluoridation without any proof of safety and effectiveness. (N.H.
and M.R.C.). Hitler is recorded in 1939 as saying:
"A good thing for the
government is the people do not think."
An excellent example of
community apathy and its dangerous consequences if not recognised by the
population. There is no argument that the actions of politicians on behalf of
the people should have a paramount qualification:
"Not to harm any person
but to benefit all."
That does not fit the force-fed
daily dose of fluoride via your kitchen tap and with the compliments of your
elected politician you voted into Parliament to serve you in accordance with the
Australian Constitution. Commonsense, simple chemistry knowledge, together with
a dash of honesty, results in a logic that naturally disqualifies any and indeed
all the great hype about fluoridation being a process of human benefit to all
age groups with all known health variables. The difference between Governments,
politicians, bureaucrats, quangos, selected Government Investigators and
Industry is that no Board of Directors or Management would survive in industry,
if they could not find any proof relating to their product.
What a contrast to Government
Controlled Human Health and their God of Fluoridation, built on sacred sites
like Fertiliser Factories and Aluminium Smelters, an untouchable Cult. The
York Review and the N.H. and M.R.C. cannot find actual scientific data that
supports their fluoride dogma, all of which should immediately put an official
stop to fluoridation, a case of courage and honesty prevailing. Obviously
fluoridation has benefits "for some", but not for human health with Government
compulsory mass medication against people's wishes. If all things were equal,
there would be cause for legal action against the perpetrators of fluoridation,
but the untouchable Fluoridation Cult has too many dollars in their guns that
fire in many directions causing gold shrapnel to spread in a ubiquitous manner.
It is the modern case of "where the arrow falls".
The science of fluoridation as
promulgated by responsible Government servants, politicians, Ministers of
Health, Health Departments and the dental fraternity, supported by the A.M.A.,
fail in their strange fluoride endeavours, on the principles of pharmacology; if
one wishes to be honest and professional: "dose related evidence
necessary". None of the above know what daily dose of fluoride each or
any person ingests. So the "principle of pharmacology" is ignored, in favour of
a commercial process devoid of medical science and human safety. The fluoride
game seems to be well controlled - No Whistle Blowers in sight!
With the Sydney 2000 Olympics
over, the scribes are analysing results. One important statistic not reported in
the media was that the source of drinking water was bottled water, not Sydney's
fluoridated tap water. That was reserved for Sydney people in their homes and
not safe for visiting athletes and their representatives. However, all that
aside, Australians are branded "great sports", they drink their fluoridated
polluted tap water and pour money into the coffers of international, overseas
fertiliser factories. We not only pay for the stuff, but help the factories rid
themselves of the fluoride waste toxic pollutant, not otherwise permitted to be
dumped anywhere. Dumping fluoride pollutants into drinking water supplies was
considered some years ago, a great commercial idea, ignoring the fact that it
had never been a scientific medical discovery, through normal medical research
nor has passed today's necessary Government testing. It was, and still is, an
untouchable process, protected by the U.S. Government. An untouchable process
now protected by law in Australia. Fluoridation untouchable? Yes, by law we
cannot take a case against fluoridation to the Supreme Court. (Victorian
Fluoridation Act 1993).
The fluoridation concept was
strategically flawed from the beginning, but where there is gold and plenty of
it, there is power beyond the laws of chemistry, medicine, and sadly politics in
particular. Printing the Fluoridation Act the Government leaves out the main
purpose of fluoridation. In reality fluoridation is to establish human walking
waste disposal units, forced to consume the waste toxic pollutant from foreign
fertiliser factories. Concern about fluoridation festers world wide, where some
democratic (sic) governments ignore their Constitutions and the "will of the
people". We are asked to accept that politicians know what is good for people to
eat, drink and breathe, totally against the Australian Constitution, where mass
medication is prohibited under Clause (s51. xxiiiA.).
"Medical and Dental
Services not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription."
Forced-fed fluoridation is
civil conscription! Democracy in Australia? Then ponder the following. The
Australian Constitution under legislative powers, "The judicature" states:
'The High Court is a court of general appeal from Supreme Courts of the States."
(s.72) This identifies the so-called democratic Parliament of Victoria, where
the Victorian Fluoridation Act was altered by a unanimous decision 28th
November, 1993 to
"Prohibit the Victorian
Supreme Court entertaining an action against Fluoridation and its operation in
Victoria." The Minister for Health, Mrs M. Tehan, told the Parliament,
28th October, 1993: "The reason for limiting the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in this way is that fluoridation of public water supply is so
important in the interest of public health." (Hansard 28th October,
1993)
She did not qualify the meaning
of "important"! Why could a Government pass such a despotic law when their
collective personnel, and political party agenda, guarantees to the people of
Victoria that fluoridation of public drinking water supplies is perfectly safe?
But it is not safe. Perhaps we have a new Murphy's Law; Government guarantees
that require laws to prohibit the democratic questioning of intellectually
dishonest government, completely and enthusiastically adopted by both Liberal
and Labor in convoluted dictatorship. There has never been any semblance of the
necessary compliance to science, open discussion, and unbiased dialogue
conducted in a democratic, honest and indeed civilised manner under the rules of
decency, compassion, quality professionalism and the Constitution.
The missing link of course is
the "establishment do-gooder organisations" they dare not touch the untouchable.
The Fluoride Armadillo camouflaged appearance is disguised as intelligent
scientific knowledge, hoping "no one will be the wiser" smothering exposure of
the real fluoridation fraud. The "Clayton" fluoride studies are still in process
and highlight the shallow depth of knowledge and the deception incorporating the
presentations and declarations in the fluoride lobby's "loose-leaf" sales manual
each page a Gem, expensively presented, giving pride of place in many prominent
areas.
York Review into
fluoridation
The British Government has just
released October 2000, The Final Fluoridation Study conducted by York
University. (200 pages) The study pronounced that fluoridation provided a
15% benefit to children living in fluoridated areas, data that is at variance
with the usual past humbug claims by dentists and governments of 60-90% benefit.
However, the very important statement from York University Review was the way
they coupled the 15% decay benefit with a 48% disadvantage for children
suffering dental fluorosis, mottled teeth. If a drug company promoted a
product at 60-90% benefit, and then admitted, maybe only 15%, but plus
a 48% harm from the product, they would be in court and denigrated by all
those do-gooder organisations, but not fluoridation, why? Will they explain,
space is available. The York Government study was touted "to end all studies
into fluoridation" , and is described so well by a U.S. researcher
indicating the scientific standard of the published result.
"The studies of the study
that studies the studies pointed out that this study that had studied the
studies had left some 3000 studies unstudied, and they called for a study of
studies that would study all studies and therefore not necessitate a study of
the study of the studies as this study had done." Another researcher stated:
"Dentists have to stop giving the illusion they are helping the poor by
throwing some fluoride pollutant chemicals into their drinking water."
The York study found no
evidence that the "poor" were "great beneficiaries" as suggested or indeed
guaranteed by our Government. That ploy of "helping the poor" is perhaps the
main persuasive con job relating to misleading the public on fluoridation.
Another quote from a scientist's research into the York studies:
"Basic human rights
would argue against 'mass medication' of any kind, but to medicate without
strong evidence or sound reason, is a crime against humanity; the York study
satisfactorily shows there can be no clear evidence for fluoridation at this
point of time."
A general consensus by the
York study is the lack of high class studies to prove all the claims about
fluoridation, most of which are now documented as "low standard". We could
have told them before wasting their time on the dental tooth fairy. A quote of
interest from an interview with Andreas Schuld at Radio Station CKST AM 1040,
Vancouver, Canada, 16th October, 2000:
"Fluorides actually cause
cavities. There are countless papers, some of them found in the York Report,
which clearly state that dental defects seen in fluorosis predispose to
caries."
With such information published
by York Fluoridation Review October 2000 on behalf of the U.K. Government, it is
interesting to note the silence of the Australian Health Minister, the N.H. and
M.R.C., State Ministers, A.M.A., A.D.A., and those pushers of fluoride mass
medication. There is a most important scientific discovery documented by the
York Review members. They could not find dental studies of a necessary
scientific quality on which to make conclusive decisions. The dental studies
they examined rated "low", they were literally rejected on scientific grounds.
They stated their Review, "has been commissioned by the Chief Medical Officer of
the Department of Health to carry out an up-to-date expert Review of fluoride
and health."
At the beginning of their
Review they state:
"Any future research into
safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with
appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base."
That statement confirms the N.H.
and M.R.C. Report 1991 that they also were unable to make definite statements on
account of "the dearth of dental data in Australia". On the subject of
determination on caries across social groups the York stated:
"No level A studies, and
very few level B studies were identified by the search."
That statement in particular
will embarrass dentists and fluoride pushers because it is their main appeal to
people's emotions in their sales pitch for fluoridation. "Help the poor
and disadvantaged." Read any paper on fluoridation and indeed the N.H. and M.R.C.
claims, that fluoridation is the great benefactor for "Poor and disadvantaged
children". Perhaps the main evidence of the Review is the York Statement:
"Objective, attempts to
access the effect of water fluoridation on developing teeth."
"for this objective,
the quality of studies found, was only moderate (level B)."
"To have clear confidence
in the ability to answer the question in this objective the quality of
evidence would need to be higher."
On the serious harm to children
suffering dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, they state:
"While fluorosis can
occur within a few years of exposure during tooth development, other
adverse effects may require long-term exposure to occur. It is
possible that long-term exposure has not been captured by these studies."
(Emphasis added.)
The content of the York Review
confounds the reader because of so much data they rejected which could have
answered more directly their many expressions of fluoridation safety and
effectiveness. Their excuse is recorded:
"In conducting a large
systematic Review that extends back to the late 1930s, limitations are
inevitable."
"The primary
limitations of the Review is the quality of the research included."
(Their choice of data) (Emphasis added)
If the York Review had
scientifically studied the 1930s history on the introduction of fluoridation,
its sponsors, and the real reason for its U.S. Government adoption, the Review
would be forced to admit fluoridation is nothing more than a commercial process
contrary to a medical process and the planned beneficiaries are/were not "the
people" but the processors of the fluoride toxic pollutant. The tide is turning
and a change of personnel at the water edge. Our people need no longer join King
Canute, the dentists are now attempting to hold back the tide of truth crashing
on the shore of established science.
Fluoridation ? The whole
truth and nothing but the truth
Professor Trevor Sheldon,
Chairman of the U.K. Government Research into fluoridation, on behalf of the
U.K. Government Department of Health Studies, York University, October 2000,
explained in his official statement, 10th December 2000, the real "findings" in
their scientific research. He supplied the following:
"l. Whilst there is
evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality
of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit,
only of the order of 15%, is far from "massive".
2. The review found
water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental
fluorosis which was not characterised as "just a cosmetic issue."
3. The review did not
show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor
to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important
adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report
recommended that more research was needed.
4. There was little
evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in
dental health.
5. The review could come
to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether
there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.
6. Probably because of the
rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious
and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.
7. The review team was
surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over
several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform
policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite
evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the
likely effects and costs of water fluoridation.
(Signed) TA. Sheldon.
Professor Trevor Sheldon, MSc, MSc, DSc, FMedSci." Emphasis added.
It is important to consider the
U.K. Government Research 2000, it confirms the statement by the Australian
National Health and Medical Research Council, that in Australia -
"there is a current dearth
of an adequate evaluative database." (N.H. and M.R.C. Report, 1991, p.139)
With confirmation, here and
abroad, that there is no scientific evidence of fluoridation safety we keep
asking Why do politicians Bless their God of Fluoridation? - all based on
scientific nothingness! Fluoridation is stranger than fiction, indeed based on
dangerous fiction, swallowed up so enthusiastically by the common naive (to put
it kindly) political agenda, that supports obvious intellectually dishonest
medical and pharmacological principles based on commercialism, lacking old
fashioned democracy, honest Government and knowing the beneficiary is not the
people of this "Nation of Freedom and Individual Liberty". The question is so
simple, for the average person, but the conveniently scientific blind
commercially orientated politicians proceed like Brown's Cows and follow, The
Why, and in whose interests? (Unlimited space available for reply from Health
Ministers, but don't hold your breath ? they do not reply to our letters.) There
is no scientific evidence, world wide, proving fluoridation safe and effective
so the question to Parliaments and members is -Why, why, why daily dose a
population by compulsion with an unproven drug (F) a waste by-product pollutant
from industry??? Australia the Land of individual Liberty! (The Prime Minister
John Howard 1.1.01). We look forward to reply from the Prime Minister and
Premiers of all Australian States naming the real beneficiaries of fluoridation
acknowledging the process is not classified as proven safe for humans.
|
