|
Copy List
The Basis of
Fluoridation "Science"
By Glen S.R. Walker
Fluoridation so-called science is
built on data obtained from people who are extremely
scientific ignorant of fact, and in their naivety
seem to suffer a personality complex by having
reality separate from science relating to the health
of the people.
Nothing in this world of science
pharmacology, even commonsense, politics and honest
science, including dentistry, has been promoted and
established on such compulsory fluoridation.
The untouchables, authors, promoters,
politicians, Governments, Universities, dentists,
doctors and the mighty media, protect compulsory
medication in a manner never before seen before in a
health promoted scheme.
Fluoride chemicals have never been
pharmaceutically classified as safe for humans
Fluoridation is an
exceptional case of exploitation in daily drugging a
population with fluoride chemicals that have never
been pharmaceutically classified as safe for humans
never registered or licensed accordingly in agencies
for such responsible testing! (U.S. Senate, F.D.A.
and E.P.A.)
Of course, one must
understand that responsibility is an unknown factor
in fluoridation promotion. You must not mix
commercialism with honest science.
Fluoride warnings - no
proof of safety
Original chemical data in chemical
dictionaries, defined the fluorides that you are
forced to drink, as RAT POISON, and indeed still
registered in Mercks Manual 1999 as "RAT POISON,
ROACH POISON', all of which drives fluoride spin
doctors into an embarrassing anger of cover-up.
On another positive note, one can
read data on Sodium Silicofluoride,
"USE:
to kill Insects;
Enzymes inhibition by fluoride ion, registered
under PESTICIDE ACT 1958 (U.S.) TOXIC POISON
SCHEDULE. . .'6', Hazard Transport Clause '8'."
One supplier of Sodium
Silicofluoride in their "Material Safety Data Sheet"
under "Warning'' heading, state:
"This product contains detectable
amounts of a chemical known to the State of
California to cause
Cancer / Birth Defects or other
reproduction harm."
To counter actual
health warnings concerning fluoride chemicals used
to fluoridate drinking water supplies, fluoride
lobby specialists have "invented" cunning
catch-phrases to mislead the public into believing
fluorides are a "nutrient", a benign safe chemical
found naturally in water, soil, rocks.
Perhaps a study of official
literature such as the U.S. Federal Register 1975
will find a proper scientific medical description
contrary to the fluoridation lobby.
"Fluoride is explicitly designated
by the Food and Drug Administration as: 'not
generally recognised as sate'."
(p.23248)
The factual difference
from promoters' claims is that Sodium Silicofluoride
is not a natural product used in artificial
fluoridation of drinking water supplies.
FACT:
Sodium Silicofluoride is an
industrial waste byproduct collected in exhaust
chimneys of fertiliser factories totally removed
from nature or any form of a "natural product', it
is a poisonous manufactured industrial pollutant.
Sodium
Silicofluoride is an industrial waste by product.
It permeates into an
odour of obnoxious obliteration of human rights when
one reads the N.H. and M.R.C. publication, "The
Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation", their textbook
of fluorides and fluoridation, making excuses why
fluoride toothpaste is not forced by LAW to label it
with a POISON SCHEDULE NUMBER.
On page 131 the N.H.
and M.R.C. state:
"Similarly,
toothpastes are classified as cosmetics for the
purpose of sales regulation"
The science and
honesty of Australia's highest Medical Organisation
brings scientific and pharmacology disgrace to
genuine Australian people and the world in general.
On the same page 131, the N.H. and M.R.C. state:
"An Australian standard number
2827 (Standards Association of Australia 1985)
specifies, amongst other requirements, that
the fluoride concentration of toothpastes
should not exceed 1,000 ppm"
Then one should demand reasons why
Colgates are now supplying a fluoride toothpaste
containing 5000ppm fluoride!
There seems no extreme to which those
handling fluorides for claimed health purposes can
venture without Government censure, or appropriate
action according to LAW.
Governments persist with a
catch-phrase syndrome and as an example, the U.S.
Government requested all their agencies to refer to
the fluoride by-product pollutant in fertiliser
factory chimneys as "the product". That then
elevates the toxic pollutant to a much higher status
and hidden accordingly from its correct scientific
terminology.
Robert Burns (1759-1796):
"Here's
freedom to him who would read,
Here's freedom to him who would
write,
There's none ever feared that
the truth should be
heard
But they whom the truth would
indict.
"There's none ever feared that the
truth should be heard,
But they whom the truth would
indict"
Robert Burns (1759-1796)
No proof of safety.
A rather frightening answer to our
question to the Australian Director General of
Health, Dr Gwyn Howells,
22nd June, 1977:
"You ask for proof of safety of
fluoridation. Indeed the onus is on opponents to
prove otherwise and we know that such proof is not
forthcoming"
That indicates the real fluoridation rort
- "We the Government" and our fluoride lobby are not
accountable for "proof of safety"!
Perhaps Dr. Hans Moolenburgh defined
the matter so excellently in few words in his book
"Fluoride: The Freedom Fight". The history of how
fluoridation was removed from Holland.
"Precisely the moment the State
makes you swallow a medicine, without asking your
permission and without the possibility of an
alternative, democracy has ceased to be and you
live in a totalitarian State."
Bogus Fluoridation Propaganda
Every time a question surfaces
relating to fluoridation claims of safety and
effectiveness, the fluoride lobby immediately
presents a propaganda campaign to "prove"
fluoridation is effective.
An excellent example of this bogus
fluoridation propaganda is published in W.H.O. book,
"Environmental Health Criteria 36: Fluorine and
Fluorides", 1984. They stated:
"there were ... 120
fluoridation studies from all continents which'
showed a reduction in caries in the range of
50-75% for permanent teeth." (Page 62)
That was a profound statement by the
World Health Organization, which has been taken as
FACT, and copied throughout
Australia
as the Gospel Truth of fluoridation
effectiveness.
The full TRUTH of that scientifically
obnoxious statement is highlighted by Dr. Philip
Sutton D.D.Sc. in his book, "The Greatest Fraud,
Fluoridation" 1996, pages 17-18.
Sutton did an in-depth study into the
published W.H.O. claim that there were 120
fluoridation studies showing the effectiveness of
fluoridation to the extent of 50-75%.
In his book - "The Greatest Fraud -
Fluoridation", Sutton documents his research:
"In 23 of these 120 studies listed,
the data from, the deciduous teeth and from
permanent teeth were listed separately as 46
studies.
Two studies which included data
from more than one town were listed as six
studies, and in seven cases reports in different
years from the same study were listed as 14
studies.
This preliminary investigation
showed that contrary to the W.H.O., the statement
listed by Murray and Rugg-Gunn in the W.H.O.
publication did not present any data for those
teeth.
This leaves 74 studies for
permanent teeth, but most
of these were of very poor scientific quality.
One did not refer to fluoridated
water, two were anonymous, three were personal
communications, and eight were essentially
progress reports.
Fourteen were not published in a
journal, but were short communications in
newsletters and bulletins issued by U.S. Health
Department.
Four of the remaining 46 studies
were original main trials known for 25 years to be
very faulty.
Sixteen of the remaining studies
were short reports in state dental and medical
newsletters and journals.
The W.H.O. selected scientists did
not mention by name, or give any references to the
studies which could not be obtained, suggesting
that they did not consider those projects of
importance.
One of those studies was printed in
the Medical Journal of Australia, 11th February,
1978.
A graph of official A.M.A. data
shows a 52% improvement of children's teeth in
northern Sydney between 1961 and 1968, but it was
only in 1969 that Sydney commenced fluoridation,
so that the
52%
improvement had no scientific relationship to
fluoridation.
The data also shows that after
fluoridation between 1968 and 1972 there was only
2% improvement, but between 1972 and 1974 there
was a sharp rise in the quality of the children's
teeth, from 62% to 72%, an
increase of over 1O% in 2
years.
This claimed sharp increase
(1972-1974) was subsequently seen and indeed
documented as the result of the Dental Survey Team
selecting children with above average number of
sound teeth from the 80,000 children in the
original area and the great improvement claimed
was in fact those of the 1818 children, a matter
of 2.2% of the original number not separated from
the original 80,000 children.
The A.M.A. report was published as
'The Dental Health Revolution of N.S.W."
It is on this quality of Science
presented to the world populations that confirm
Philip Sutton's choice of title to his latest book -
"The Greatest Fraud - Fluoridation", 1996.
No original research
When the Hamer Liberal Government was
pushing the Fluoridation Act through the Victorian
Parliament in 1973, they used the following to
support their beliefs. The public would take them at
their word, especially with such a distinguished
group:
-
Commission of Public Health
-
The Australian Medical Association
-
The Australian Dental Association
-
The National Health and Medical
Research Council
-
The World Health Organisation (W.H.O.)
The Member for Coburg, Mr Mutton,
asked the Minister of Health, Mr.
Scanlon, in the Parliament, the following
question:
"What research has been
carried out by those listed
above?"
The Minister answered:
"No original research has been
carried out by any of the bodies named. They are
not research organisations ..." (Victorian
Hansard, 20th November, 1973,
p.2293)
That was over 30 years
ago and not surprisingly, the situation has not
changed one iota, they have never done a skerrick of
original research into fluoridation. Their
fluoridation rhetoric source is based on solidarity
and follow their leader irrespective of intellectual
science, their hierarchy is more important than
factual evidence.
The Untouchables:
But who are the
leaders in this awful health rort? They are
industrial and commercial giants, together with the
Parliament today's "untouchables'".
In 1954 the Victorian
Commission of Public Health recommended the
introduction of fluoride into the drinking water. (Hansard,
21st November 1973).
How could this happen
relative to pharmacology, which governs the use of
drugs and medicines?
The very first
artificial fluoridation experiment (1945) with
fluoride on humans was not completed at that date (a
10 year experiment in U.S.A.), which makes the
auspicious Commission of Public Health's action more
than questionable and based on absolute zero proven
science.
Of course, most people
recognise this kind of action is a normal
'scientific' agenda in Government Departments.
Setting an example of
proper Parliamentary protocol at its highest order,
the Premier, Mr. Hamer came forth with with the
'King Hit' to those suggesting fluoride in drinking
water was a health hazard. Mr. Hamer stated:
"One would need to drink 5000
litres (approximately 1000 gallons) at one sitting
... to have an effect" (Hansard)
Mr. Hamer was careful
to note that it would be necessary to be sitting
when drinking 5000 litres of fluoridated water. In
this instance we agree to the scientific importance
of sitting and where that happens it would be at the
discretion of the drinker!
The great scientific
pharmacology knowledge of Mr. Hamer is destroyed
because the story of 5000 litres of fluoridated
water is a rather silly scientific joke, having
absolutely no relationship to Chronic Fluoride
Poisoning by a chemical known to accumulate in the
human body.
A medically accepted fact is that
only 50% of ingested fluoride is excreted, not
forgetting that factor is based on a human with 100%
kidney efficiency which sadly is uncommon these days
of toxic pollution throughout the universe including
water.
Most fluoridation
promoters, irrespective of their positions, register
under the following scientific description:
"Those who know the
least, know it in the loudest
manner".
The fact is that every
day, 50% of fluoride intake accumulates in the body
of every person drinking fluoridated water. Even
simple arithmetic spells out eventual danger to the
health of even consumer.
Copy List
|
