The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but The
The ‘Mythconception’ of Fluoridation
By Glen S.R. Walker
Australian people's inalienable rights
gives absolute power to demand complete attention to the above by
Governments, Politicians, Ministers of Governments, Bureaucrats, Health
Departments, Health Organisations and Associations, plus of course Local
No person, irrespective of title or
position, is above the Law in a Democracy.
Does the introduction of compulsory
artificial fluoridation throughout Australia qualify with the above?
At one early Dental Conference, the
dentists were advised to not use the expression "artificial fluoridation"
because artificial is a phoney - maybe slip of the tongue?
"The study of fluorides and water
fluoridation is not just about science, it is about vested interests and
dubious motivations. Talk to any 'professional' person about incompetence
and corruption, whether they be an industrialist, politician or a
scientist, and they switch off completely.
Those who consider themselves to be
powerful, educated or privileged, frequently refuse to accept that their
particular section of society is anything but sincere and beneficial. And
yet history is littered with stories of abuse of power. As the saying
goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."' (www.glenwalker.net)
Dr. Frank Bull, top fluoridation
spokesperson in the U.S., made these statements at a Federal Government
Dental Conference in Washington 1951:
"Fourth Annual Conference State
Dental Directors June 6-8, 1951, Washington D.C.
Dr. Frank Bull, the main speaker,
State Director Dental Education Board, addressed the Conference:
"When they take us at our own word,
they make awful liars out of us.
Why should we do a pre-fluoridation
survey. We have told the public it works, so we can't go back on that.
These fellows can just take
statements of the American Dental Association, or the U.S. Public Health
Service, or the deans of dental schools, or research workers around the
country and they can prove to you that we are absolutely crazy for even
prove to thinking about fluoridation. You are going to live that down.
There is no way of avoiding it'"
People will ask 'Isn't fluoride the
thing that causes mottled enamel or fluorosis? Are you trying to sell us
on the idea of putting that sort of thing in the water?' You have got to
have an answer and it had better be good.
With controlled fluoridation you
get just the exact amount you want."
There is the Official Science of
Fluoridation, and nothing has changed since that Conference in 1951.
There is no known dose per person in the
world and no two persons drink the same amount of water each day, so, the
dose differs enormously not only day by day, but also under conditions of
climate, temperature, work sport and general health of each person.
The History of Fiuoridation debate in the
Federal Parliament 1964, Hansard, reports Mr Killen s opinion or the
Government council's report on fiuoridation. He stated:
"That report has been described
variously as being critical, exhaustive and extensive and as appraising
every known facet of fluoridation. Yet that committee turned in a report
of only 124 words. Nobody could accuse it of being long-winded.
Even Moses needed 319 words to set out
the ten commandments, but this committee dealt with this great issue in
five paragraphs, or in 124 words.
Each of the paragraphs represented
a proposition not supported by one skerrick of evidence.
There is not a word about the
monograph produced by Dr. Sutton. There is not a reference to Professor
With very great respect to the
Minister, I say that he now regards fluoridation as a sacred cow. But what
may be today's sacred cow can turn out to be tomorrow's cold roast beef."
Even back in those days of April, 1964 the
"There is no evidence at all that
fluoridation is harmful." (Hansard 16th April, 1964)
That great piece of scientific
misinformation lived on to the Victorian Hamer Report on Fiuoridation 1980.
They also found no evidence of harm - BUT -
they did not look nor even consider at least 100 Statutory Declarations from
people proving harm from fluoridated water, and some with medical Doctor's
The Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies,
became alarmed with the opposition to fluoridation voiced in the
Parliament by members of his Party.
Those against fluoridation on were
described by Menzies as unsuitable to be members of a select fluoridation
committee, because their current speeches in the Parliament that day
presented "all the evidence in one way".
Menzies presented to the Parliament the
usual list of endorsements, none of whom had ever done any original
fluoridation research. It was a noisy clatter of Australian Canberra parrots
presenting well rehearsed fluoridation propaganda as Jim Killen said,
"not supported by one skerrick of evidence" (scientific).
Menzies' attitude to Killen may have been
partly caused by one most important statement by Killen in the Parliament:
"I am not ashamed to say in this
company (Parliament) that I believe, and believe passionately, that it is
not the duty of the State to dose its people like cattle." (Hansard,
16th April, 1964, p.1142)
Consider Sir Robert Menzies, Prime
Minister, having to face his Government's defeat by a vote of 56 to 52 and
all tied up in fraudulent compulsory fluoridation machinations.
The Parliament never passed a Bill to
Fluoridate Canberra - it was done quietly by Minister Doug Anthony under an
Administrative Act, a lengthy case of political endeavour to get
fluoridation into Canberra and leave Democracy out of the debate and no
scientific evidence of safety ever introduced by Menzies and his band of
Nobody wanted fluoridation more than the
The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but
What an empty lot of words when
fluoridation escapes out into the public arena.
The Minister stated in open Parliament,
16th April, 1964:
"There is no evidence at all that
fluoridation is harmful."
Both intelligence and honesty were left
outside the Parliament on that particular day but silence was the order of
By 1964 most scientific, medical, dental,
pharmaceutical journals were warning of the danger of adding toxic fluoride
chemicals to drinking water supplies.
However, the Minister had to do nothing
more than listen to Dr Gibbs, Member for Bowman, in his summation on the
fluoridation issue, presented by him to Parliament on that infamous
"If any one had asked me whether I
favoured fluoridation of public water supplies - and no one did - I should
have answered in the negative. My reason would have been 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 had read failed to convince me.
I have now felt it my duty to fully
study this matter. In this study I have been greatly helped by the library
staff who have, almost unflinchingly, secured for me mountains of
literature on both sides of the subject, and many papers dealing with the
fundamental aspects of fluorine metabolism, which were prepared with
complete scientific integrity and not for the purposes of controversy."
Mountains of literature available in the
Library! But not read or understood by the Minister!
"Let me say from the outset that when
I make a statement it is backed by, at least, one scientific paper.
Everything I say can be proved. If I do make a conjecture, I shall
identify it as such. Much remains to be known about the behaviour of
fluoride in the body. Even the protagonists of fluoridation recognise
this. here are a few quotations -
'There is uncertainty as to the full
extent of the effects on man produced by the absorption of quantities of
fluoride large enough to alter slightly the X-ray appearance of the
bones, but too small to endanger life.
The editor has been struck by the
fact that there seems to be no other ready source of precise information
as to certain questions which remain to be answered.
It is hardly necessary to state in
regard to the fluoridation of public water supplies, it is impossible to
give absolute guarantees of safety.
An arch-priest of fluoridation,
McClure, says that his experiments and later those of Zipkin, another
convinced us that fluoride does
not accumulate in the body. It is eliminated, particularly in the
The above statement by McClure and Zipkin
is completely false but fits their scientific snuggle into the fluoridation
hierarchy where position is more precious than scientific truth.
"Here let me quote form 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
physiological fact explains the older concept which leads to to the
designation of fluoride as a "cumulative poison".
This concept is supported and
confirmed by recent observations on experimentally induced fluoride
intoxication in experimental animals.
A considerable body of evidence
indicates that there is a time interval between the "initiation of
significant increase in the ingestion of fluoride by domestic animals and
the onset of intoxication by fluoride. This interval has been aptly
referred to as the "lag" or latent period in the toxic syndrome.
Let us consider the water supply as a
source of fluorine. 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 would not - and,
secondly upon the amount of 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.
A number of studies have been made of
this. All agreed that the variation in water intake as between individuals
is, as I say, enormous. For this reason fluoridation of a public water
supply is unscientific.
In any case, no one knows the
optimum daily dose of fluorine. I will show that there is wide
individual susceptibility to it and I believe that there is no optimum
dose. You will recollect that fluorides are excreted by the kidneys. It
should go without saying that a person with a kidney disease might not be
able to rid himself of as much of this drug as a healthy man, and thus
would accumulate more of it in his body. Yet Hodge, another fluorine
apologist, contests this and maintains that the excretion of fluorine by
way of the kidneys goes on, irrespective of their state of health. His
contention has been proven to be wrong again and again.
It is incontrovertible that
fluorides accumulate in the body.
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. In Newburg,
one of the artificially fluoridated towns in the United States of America,
there has been a remarkable increase in the incidence of defects in the
outer layer of the long bones of children. This condition has been
observed at X-ray."
Dear reader, these facts were presented in
the Australian Federal Parliament 1964, 40 years ago, when the Prime
Minister became gravely impatient at such true statements against
fluoridation. He wanted fluoridation without scientific or democratic
process in the Parliament.
Nothing but the Truth, So Help me God! -
seems the only place we can get Truth in Fluoridation.
Bringing fluoridation up to date demands
the answer to ONE simple question, one that has been asked a million times
throughout the world including, of course, Australia.
Will the Government of Australia provide
us with research published in World Scientific, Medical, Pharmaceutical
Journals, proving by correct scientific investigation, that Fluoridation is
perfectly safe for humans?
The claim of fluoridation safety is always
used in dental propaganda, endorsed by the A.M,A., A.D.A., N.H.M.R.C., all
State Governments and indeed Universities, none of whom can show proof of
In the past we have offered even the Prime
Minister, open space in The Australian Fluoridation News, to show
"proof of safety", but never has our offer been acknowledged or accepted.
The fluoridation scientific hoax has
exploded within every Australian Parliament. The cry of dental disease
echoing around the Country, in every City. We, the Government, State and
Federal, will be spending millions of dollars to give people dental service
where the waiting time for such service is quoted by Governments as up to 5
There seems an arranged scientific-medical
intellectual indemnity for those promoting fluoridation. It seems more
important to mislead the public than understand plain honest common logic.
Consider The Bendigo Advertiser,
16th October, 2004, under the heading "$14M dental boost."
The article's main story is "Central
Victoria's shocking public health dental waiting lists are set to be slashed
under the State Government initiative to inject $14 million extra
into the State's dental service.
The section of cities to share this $14
million includes Echuca. The statement reads:
"In Echuca funding for public dental
services will more than triple from $133,000 to $448,000."
After all the original "expert fluoridation
dental advice and guarantees" in 1978 by Government and dental fluoride
promoters, that is 26 years ago, Echuca was fluoridated!
"The Whole Truth"
If fluoridation resulted in "The Whole
Truth" about its efficiency, one must consider the flummoxed scientific
intelligent scientific rort that now discloses its failure (Echuca). Be
assured these towns will also get a share from the $400,000,000 (Four
hundred million) the Federal Government will also be distributing to
"cover" the failure of fluoridation in Australia and hopefully its
scientific demise, hidden in the covert cupboard.
Australian people do not believe the
fluoridation failure excuses and it is well recorded that citizens are no
longer hoodwinked into taking for granted statements by Governments.
Politicians are really masters of illusion, their illusions are political
THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT
THE TRUTH - THESE CAN ONLY BE FOUND TODAY IN A DICTIONARY.
In some Australian towns, 2004, dentists
are telling the public, on television and radio not to look at Anti
Fluoridation web-sites because that information is "scare-mongering
As the owner of an International Website, "www.glenwalker.net"
exclusively promoting honest science and indeed common sense, relating to
artificial fluoridation, space is offered in the Australian Fluoridation
news to all those dental self-opinionated experts to report on any
misinformation available on my website.
We cannot be more honest and transparent on
this particular website, you will find our stated policy is "The Truth and
Nothing but the Truth", an impossible standard of science, honesty, morals
and Law for dentists to follow in their endeavours to promote compulsory
mass medication throughout Australia with fluoride chemicals that are not
registered and licensed for use in drinking water supplies.