|
Copy List
A Question
to the Prime Minister of Australia, all State
Premiers and Territories' Heads of State
by Glen S.R. Walker
The following
question is a reasonable request under a democratic
state of Government and to those who voted to force
all Australians to daily dose themselves with
fluoridated water.
Is compulsory
artificial fluoridation of our drinking water
supplies constitutionally legal, unquestionably safe
for every Australian citizen, and not one person
will be harmed?
Replies under
personal signatures to the above will be welcome and
space available to publish your scientific evidence.
Such drastic
politically forced ingestion of poisonous fluoride
requires sound scientific evidence of a high
scientific standard, published in relative world
professional journals opened to public scrutiny.
The usual general
unscientific, run of the mill, fluoridation
propaganda is unacceptable, as ubiquitously promoted
throughout Australia by Governments and their Health
Departments.
Are the claims of
fluoridation scientifically honest, are these claims
actually the results of original medical scientific
research into safety and effectiveness and
documented accordingly? Please quote documentation.
Medical science may
be too difficult for politicians, but just plain
commonsense should (?) get through and reading the
following quotation, we hope, might help.
"No
physician in his right senses would prescribe for
someone he has never met, whose medical history he
does not know, a substance which is intended to
create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as
much as you like, but you will take it for the
rest of your life, because some people say that it
can reduce tooth decay in children'."
(Dr. Peter Mansfield, Director, Templegarth Trust,
Birmingham, U.K.)
If some Australian
support is required, we publish the following
statements for your official perusal.
Canberra,
Federal Parliament, Hansard 16th April, 1964: Mr
James Killen said:
"I am not
ashamed to say, in this company, that I believe,
and believe passionately, that it is not the duty
of the State to dose its people like cattle."
On the same day in
that Parliament debate, Dr. Gibbs said (Hansard):
"It is my
deeply rooted belief that no measure
(fluoridation) should be adopted in the name of
public health unless there is complete certainty
that the measure (fluoridation) is completely
innocuous.
Not one paper
listed in the Index Medicus conclusively proves
the innocuousness of fluoride."
Perhaps by bringing
the matter up to this present day, the following
statement by Don Wilson, Chairman, Australian Dental
Association, Oral Health Education Chairman, is
reported in the West Australian Sunday Times, April
2002:
"Many parents
had been lulled into a false sense of security
about the protection of fluoridated water."
The Australian
Labor Party's Platform completely endorses and
confirms artificial fluoridation of all drinking
water supplies. They announced on 19th January, 2004
(Herald Sun):
"They will
unveil a $400 million dental drive to reduce
waiting lists of up to 250,000 Victorians
suffering teeth problems." (Melbourne
fluoridated 1977)
"The 4 year
programme will 'initially focus on the backlog of
elderly and poorer patients waiting for public
dental care."
However, we now
enter the 2004 Australian dental miracle, relating
to the 500,000 people waiting 5 years for dental
treatment.
Within 12 days, the
Australian people's teeth improved to such a degree
that at the Labor Party's National Convention they
voted a platform of $300 million, a reduction of 20%
or $100 million, to cure the dental problems of
500,000 Australian people.
That seems to
confuse with the dental and Government adamant
claims that fluoridation is especially and
remarkably responsible for great benefits to
poorer and underprivileged people and the elderly
in the protection of their teeth from decay by the
fluoride in their drinking water.
Waiting lists have
ballooned with at least 500,000 Australians now
waiting for up to 5 years to see a dentist.
There should be an
official Government independent inquiry into these
dental facts, officially quoted, because they
are quite contrary to all the Government published
promises and claims to the Australian people made in
our parliaments, the highest authority in the
country.
The inquiry to
include scientific investigation into the similar
official claims by Australian Parliaments, Health
Departments, Ministers of Health, A.M.A., A.D.A.,
also the published endorsers, and Universities
throughout the Commonwealth.
The claimed
effectiveness of fluoridation and the intellectually
dishonest scientific comparisons between riuondated
and non-fluoridated areas should be urgently
investigated.
The effectiveness
of fluoridation is rather like children playing
games with blocks. They build models of grandeur
that collapse when tested for durability and
design.
Even a simpleton
could understand the difference between dental facts
and misleading dental myths.
Example
Victorian
Parliament 1973 (Hansard):
The Minister of
Health stated that
"If
fluoridation was not introduced, future
politicians, legislators and the people would have
no teeth."
Simple commonsense
(not available in the Parliament) deduction of the
Minister's medical claim, was not challenged in the
Parliament and allowed to remain cast in stone,
mislead people into believing al unfluoridated
communities are/Will be toothless.
That is a
scientific scandalous statement by a Minister of
Health but the Parliament representing the people
accepted it without question. Fooling politicians is
child's play.
At that day in
1973, and since, the capital of Queensland, the City
of Brisbane, has never been fluoridated and their
children have quality teeth equal to fluoridated
capital cities of Australia.
The Minister's
scientific (?), intellectual (?), political
prognostic statement to Victorian people, relative
to fluoridation's drastic need, is devoid of one
skerrick of honest dental science, but it helped the
introduction of compulsory artificial fluoridation.
For a scientific
and medical (?) reason, you are forced to drink the
fluoride shandy, 24 hours of every day, with the
compliments of your politician and his/her political
party.
Politicians know
only too well that only 4 per cent of
populations drink fluoridated water, meaning the
importance of understanding that 96 per cent of
the world population are free of this daily
compulsory drugging with unregistered and
unlicenced fluoride chemicals, collected as
toxic pollutants from inside exhaust chimneys
of fertiliser factories.
Europe, the base of
scientifically advanced countries, does not use the
fluoride toxic waste in their drinking water
supplies and their children have better teeth than
in fluoridated countries.
Some European
countries "experimented" with fluoridation, but all
have now rejected the process in the same manner as
Switzerland, the last European country to reject
fluoridation after 41 years experimentation.
The city of Basel,
Switzerland, the only city fluoridated, officially
stopped the process 9th April, 2003, because:
"The
preventative effect of fluoridation of drinking
water could not be proved by any study, in spite
of fluoridation, dental caries have been on the
increase. The danger of dental fluorosis has been
played down. The fluoridation of drinking water is
particularly problematic in the case of young
children and babies."
Some governments
representing their people are waking up to the
dangers of fluoridation.
The Belgium
Minister of Health announced, July 2002, its
Government has:
"Taken
fluoride tablets, fluoride drops, fluoride chewing
gum all off the Belgium market, all claimed to be
the crown jewels of dentistry, but they are
poisonous and hold great risk for physical and
often psychological harm."
The fluoride Report
by UNICEF (United Nations International Childrens
Emergency Fund 2001) complained that "some
governments did not sufficiently realise how
damaging fluoride is - especially for children who
have more tender organisms than adults and are less
able to eliminate fluoride."
Has there been
documented evidence of any harm from fluorides and
fluoridation?
The question is of
grave medical importance, because the evidence is
seen every day in children with dental fluorosis or
commonly called "mottled teeth".
Dental fluorosis
can only be caused by fluoride, a simple
understanding, but the fluoride promoters attempt to
mislead people into believing it can be caused by
many other reasons. A case of dishonest cover-up.
However disturbing
is the sight of mottled teeth, a more important
medical and government scandal emanates from the
fact that no scientific medical action is taken into
examining the probable body damage apart from
fluoride killing the cells in children's tooth
enamel.
Dental fluorosis is
caused by fluoride killing cells in tooth enamel. It
follows by scientific reasoning that it would be
impossible for that poison action, strong enough to
kill cells in teeth, to be confined only to the
mouth, when in fact the fluoride is channelled
throughout the whole body.
There are no
Australian short or long-term studies on the health
of children with dental fluorosis, whereas evidence
is mounting relative to even IQ of children so
affected, documented in countries with affected
children.
The obvious is
ignored, even though the government spends billions
of our dollars every year on other health matters
but ignoring problems associated with the only
common health denominator in the country through the
water supply, pumped into every home every day.
Health laws in
Australia, together with the Constitution, make
compulsory artificial fluoridation illegal, not
withstanding the fact that the poison fluoride
chemical, sodium silicofluoride, mostly used
throughout Australia for supplies, is NOT REGISTERED
or LICENCED for use on humans! We await some
replies.
Copy List
|
