|
Copy List
FLUORIDATION STRANGER THAN FICTION
THE GENESIS OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
By Glen S.R. Walker
Fluoridation with its intellectually
dishonest promotion by influential and wealthy organisations, including
Parliaments, has demonstrated the ease with which any principle can be
destroyed. Sorcery replaces purebred standards of chemistry, medicine,
dentistry and above all else pharmacology.
Politicians of all kinds, councils, health
departments, all board the gravy train with no indicator sign showing where
they are going health-wise!
The greatest scientific "new turnaround" in
world scientific history commenced with fluoridation which was strongly and
scientifically, medically and indeed dentally condemned by the highest
authorities in the world of science.
The Victorian Government Inquiry into the
Fluoridation of Victorian Water Supplies 1980 stated:
"Much of the information available to
the public is sensational, ill-informed, incomplete or misleading.
We consider that the community should be
kept informed not only of any decisions the Government should make but also
of the reasons for these decisions."
This "kept informed" is processed by
refusing to answer correspondence relating to their questionable statements
on compulsory fluoridation! Back in 1943 the American Medical Association in
an Editorial stated:
"Fluorides are "general protoplasmic
poisons" with the capacity to "modify the metabolism of cells" by
"inhibiting certain enzyme systems". It further stated that "the sources of
fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1 part per million or
more of fluorine."
During 1944 another Editorial this time in:
"The Journal of the American Dental Association warned:
Use of 'drinking water containing as
little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluoride will cause such
developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and
osteopetrosis, as well as goiter and we cannot afford to run the risk
of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is at
present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental
disfigurements among children. Further, in the light of our present
knowledge or lack of knowledge of the chemistry of the subject (fluorine),
the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good'."
Perhaps the British Dental Journal in 1970
made an important addition to the dental fluoridation scientific
gobbledegook:
"Perhaps the greatest deterrent to
meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water
fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they
must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous
scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental
and general health. They do not ...as soon as dentists recognise their
responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be
outstanding. In politics, the emphasis is on propagandising rather than
on education."
"In 1952, a former state health
director, Dr. A.L. Miller, then a United States representative from Nebraska
and Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals in Foods, addressed
Congress about water fluoridation. While expressing understandable
consternation over the complete reversal of opinion regarding fluoridation
by USPHS officials in only a three month period, he went on to add:
'I am certain that the dental profession
merely echoes and endorses the opinions of the Public Health Services. They
have done little experimental work themselves.'
Continuing, he stated:
'Mr. Speaker, despite my best efforts,
and from the evidence before my committee, I cannot find any public evidence
that gave me the impression that the American Medical Association, the
American Dental Association, or several other health agencies, now
recommending the fluoridation of water, had done any original work of their
own. These groups were simply endorsing each other's opinions.'
He added that all the basic science experts
and researchers advocated going much more slowly with the possible use of
fluoride. He then averred:
'I believe that the dental profession
and other public-minded individuals, like myself, have been misled by the
Public Health Service, because all of the facts have not been made available
upon this subject'." (Extraordinary Science - 1944)
The misinformation mentioned in the Hamer
Victorian Government Report "ill-informed, incomplete or misleading etc.
etc/' makes a political and medical mockery of honest dentistry.
"The National Institute of Dental
Research told Congressional Appropriations Fiscal year 1985 that in 1974, 38
per cent of dentists were using "pit and fissure sealants"; and 58 per cent
by 1982. Since then, massive campaigns by dentistry have increased this
percentage enormously in Federal and State programs, in insurance programs
and private dentistry.
The entangled fluoride salesmen make
many tongue in cheek statements such as the following from the publication,
Dentistry Dental Practice, and Community, in which they state:
'Sealants and their associated composite
products are among the most exciting technological developments in
dentistry.'
In the 1980's the American Dental
Association and others in dentistry stated that 85 per cent of cavities
occurred in pits and fissures, and that these surfaces should be sealed. The
director of the U.S.A. National Institute of Dental Research Dr. Loe, told
an Appropriation Committee:
'. . . fluorides don't really get access
to these pitted areas. Today these are the tooth surfaces that are most
prone to develop cavities.'
Dr Loe also cited the use of sealants.
Those in dentistry research have stated many times that 'sealants will
prevent tooth decay by 100 per cent in the occlusal chewing surfaces, the
pits and fissures where most decay occurs and are not prevented by
fluoride.'
Dr. Loe has also been reported as
stating that 'much of the decline in the rate of tooth decay in children
can be attributed to the growing use of sealants'." (Extraordinary
Science 1994)
London, The Sunday Telegraph, 1st
December, 1996 -reported it -
"learned of research, kept hidden in
America for 50 years, suggesting fluoride can damage the Nervous System and
Teeth."
The Melbourne Age, 14th December, 1994
reported:
"Professor Eric Reynolds from Melbourne
University's School of Dental Science stated:
"Tooth decay remains a significant
health problem despite fluoride in our drinking water, and The Australian
Institute of Health Statistics show that in 1991 the health costs of dental
caries or decay amounted to $471 million. The 1993 National Oral Health
Survey found that 98 per cent of 21-to-29 year olds suffered tooth decay."
As the bell tolls on fluoridation myths and
its history of scientific dental deceit, new and old data goes "unseen" and
"unwanted" by the Fluoride Mafia that controls artificial fluoridation and
those involved in its extraordinary claims of safety and effectiveness.
The Hopewood Story
In Melbourne University 24th June, 1981,
Professor E. Storey, Professor of Child Dental Health, lectured under the
title, "Land of Milk and Honey".
As an example of diet relationship to
dental decay Professor Storey showed slides that illustrated the diet of
children from the Hopewood Home in Bowral, New South Wales.
Anyone interested in children and a love
for mankind should have a copy of the book A Gift of Love, the
history of Leslie Owen Bailey and his Hopewood home for children. An example
of love and commonsense, a combination that records results not equalled in
drugs and medicine.
Leslie Bailey wrote these words in 1944:
"In the course of a few years, when we
are able to demonstrate about a hundred children, with sound teeth, and
health records well above average, we will be in a position to encourage
others to pay more attention to our child welfare methods."
On 6th November, 1963, he wrote:
"The high-pressure salesmanship of the
drug companies has succeeded in weaning the medical profession from those
demonstrable truths and, in lieu thereof, to employ high-priced drugs which
merely mask the consequences of wrong living, but do not restore real
health, such as that of Dr. Alan Carroll who continued his active work up to
the age of 105 years."
On p.172 of the book we find this important
statement:
"The water was drawn from the town
supply. This water has been examined (Jones 1949) for the presence of
fluoride but none was detected." (Emphasis added)
Professor Storey was obviously impressed
with the results at "Hopewood", because he dwelt on the subject of Hopewood
children's outstanding teeth compared with other communities in Australia.
The Professor also spent time with his
illustrated diet chart from Hopewood, all of which pointed to the present
causes of dental decay - NOT THE NECESSITY OF FLUORIDE.
A notation on the Hopewood House Report
from the Institute of Dental Research, United Dental Hospital of Sydney,
Australia. (The Medical Journal of Australia, 20th June, 1953,
pp.879-881) says:
"We wish to acknowledge the assistance
given by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia."
So the N.H.M.R.C. were well aware of this
outstanding study of children's teeth in 1953, the same year they decided,
"lack of fluoride" was the cause of dental decay. Their endorsement of
fluoridation was also 1953.
The Medical Journal, issue of February 20,
1960, attested that after a ten year examination period, the Hopewood
children continued to show a "remarkable" freedom from dental caries:
"At the end of the ten-year period the
dental decay experience was conspicuously less than in the general child
population of the State of New South Wales, an observation in line with
those made in earlier years (1947 to 1952 inclusive). Thus State
school-children had 10.7 (mean value) decay, missing or filled permanent
teeth per child at age 13 years, whereas the corresponding figure for
Hopewood House children was 1.6. The proportion of children having no dental
decay at age 13 years was 0.4% for the State school-children and 53% for
Hopewood House children. Such a contrast is truly remarkable."
The article, as a whole, was in the nature
of an appeal to the medical profession, 'to help in establishing sound
dietetic practices amongst the population (of Australia)', based on
practically applying the lessons learned from Hopewood House. Portions of
this report are quoted herewith.
Page 184 continues:
"It is therefore little short of
miraculous that this State of New South Wales, in which the above-mentioned
survey was made, should have within its border a group of children aged 9 to
16 years who are relatively free from dental decay. The obvious question is:
'Why are they so different in this respect?'"
Pages of interesting reports from the
Medical Journal of Australia are well worth reading, all of which prove
this unique "blind testing" of children's teeth at Hopewood.
On p.172 an M.J.A. Report explains:
"The type of life led by the children is
what is generally described as 'healthy'; that is to say, they are well
housed and well clothed, and have regular meals and regular exercise under
supervision. Those of school age attend school; the younger ones attend a
kindergarten within the home itself. As far as possible, the children are
made to feel that they are a large family living in what is virtually their
own home."
DIET
A study of any group of children living
under controlled conditions is likely to prove interesting, but our interest
in the Hopewood House group was considerably heightened by the fact that
these children were 'protected' from refined carbohydrates. We therefore
made frequent visits to the kitchen, food-stores and dining rooms at meal
times, and, although we have not kept a complete record, the diet consisted
mainly of wholemeal bread, wholemeal biscuits, wholemeal porridge, fruits
fresh and dried), vegetables (cooked and raw), a small amount of meat,
butter, cheese, eggs, milk, fruit juices, honey or molasses as a sweetening
agent on occasion, and nuts. (Youth Welfare Association of Australia, Annual
Report, 1949).
As far as possible, food was taken uncooked
and/or with a minimum of preparation, the idea being to present the food in
its natural state. Notable for their absence from the diet were such items
as sugar (white and brown), white flour products (including cakes and sweet
biscuits) and any combination of these items. No tea was used.
Did the Doctors, Dentists or Politicians
learn anything from this remarkable home for children? NO!
The "Hopewood Home for Children Report" was
supplied to the Hamer Victorian Government Inquiry into Fluoridation 1980
BUT the three selected Committee members made no mention of it in their
Report!
Leslie Owen Bailey will be remembered for
his love of children and his stand against the Establishment, who projected
their usual animosity against him and the Hopewood Home that was proving
just how wrong the Establishment were compared with his methods of DENTAL
CARE without fluoridation.
One wonders if the Hamer Committee Report
will be remembered for its part in improving the lives of children.
In Hopewood Home we have a proper Study in
Australia, regarded by the Medical Journal of Australia as "little short of
miraculous" but not rating the slightest mention in the Government Hamer
Report.
The details of the Hopewood Home study were
the basis of a submission to the Hamer Committee by this Author. (Fluoridation
Poison on Tap).
Did the Fluoridation Committee learn
anything? Were the Government members and the public made aware of our
Submissions on the above? NO, NO, NO!
Durri Aboriginal Service, Kempsey, N.S.W.
1990-1994
"The water at the Mackay Valley Centre
is NOT fluoridated but with proper care, the children's teeth, during that
particular 4 year study recorded a dental decay reduction of 38%."
(Dental Therapy Programme, Durri Aboriginal Medical Services. Kempsey N.S.W.
1990-1994).
"There's none so blind as they that won't
see." (Jonathan Swift 1667-1745). Or join the Pro-Fluoridation Scientific
Raffle - it's fun, nobody ever knows the winner.
The Australian Disease "Apathy" is more
serious than any known mental problem, even though it is displayed every day
in so many ways.
Apathy is synonymous with the 1939 Joseph
Goebbel's principles of propaganda that by continuous repetition the myth
becomes a FACT. That is the FACT of fluoridation promotion, the parroting of
scientific nonsense hoping it becomes an accepted principle of medical
research which of course it never was and never will be.
Goebbels made his famous statement on the
German propaganda - His "propaganda must arrive under strict protection."
That sounds like today's promotion of fluoridation!
Simple dental FACTS must be ignored,
otherwise they will kill organised fluoridation propaganda if allowed out in
the public arena.
The Victorian Government is the most
aggressive promoter of fluoridation, but supply large coloured POSTERS for
display outside dentists' rooms stating:
"THERE'S A BETTER WAY - SEAL YOUR
CHILDREN'S TEETH AGAINST DECAY". (Copy of POSTER - Australian
Fluoridation News Nov-Dec 1998)
Sealants are the greatest ploy used to
cover up the failure of fluoridation.
In 1987, Dr. A.S. Gray - Director of Dental
Health Services, District of British Columbia, Canada, stated:
"Recent reports indicate that today, 83
per cent of all caries in North American children are pit and fissure
cavities that are not considered preventable by fluorides, they are
prevented by sealants."
Sealants are the accepted means of stopping
tooth decay and recommended by all Health Departments throughout the World
without one iota of dental debate because it is dental FACT.
If only the World was faced with similar
scientific (practical and common sense) assurance that fluoridation stops
tooth decay and all their mythical hype were TRUE, professional groups would
regain respect in their relative actions and arena.
Fluoridation hope by their spin Doctors is
based on unscientific conclusions derived from propaganda studies most of
which are data on children's teeth.
The scientific problem, completely ignored
by Government and those who make up that kind of public representation, is
their choice of commercialism rather than true science.
There is an indisputable scientific
statistical law relating to dental studies called BLIND EXAMINATIONS
necessary to avoid BIAS.
This means the examiner is unaware whether
or not the person examined is taking part in such experimental treatment.
EXAMINER ERROR AND BIAS
In a submission made under oath in 1981 in
the High Court, Edinburgh, Dr John Yiamouyiannis stated:
"Furthermore, no double-blind or even
well-controlled blind testing has ever been done in which it has been shown
that 1 part per million fluoride added to the drinking water of humans
reduces tooth decay and therefore no sound scientific basis has ever been
established for adding fluoride to the public water supplies for the purpose
of reducing tooth decay."
"The fact that no double-blind studies
on humans have ever been performed showing that fluoride added to the
drinking water at 1 part per million reduces tooth decay has been admitted
by the British Department of Health and Social Security through a letter to
Dr Yiamouyiannis from Dr Rogers."
It is clear that this major requirement of
a scientific study has not been fulfilled in fluoridation trials.
A "commonsense" study into fluoridation
data would fill books of learning because the enormous health variables in
every person are never considered because such data would reduce dental
fluoridation science to its rightful place in the rubbish bin of pretended
science.
Even politicians know fluoridation has
failed to stop dental decay.
The Australian, 1st February, 2004,
reported "the Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, would spend $120
million a year to end the 'scandal' of needy Australians unable to get
dental treatment."
He reported to the A.L.P. National
Conference that there were 500,000 Australian people waiting for dental
care.
Latham follows the ploy of fluoridation
pushers by claiming the disadvantaged (pensioners) who are suffering. He
also proudly mentioned the 1946 change to the Australian Constitution (51,
xxiiiA).
Two important points require clarification
-
(1) Labor aggressively supports
compulsory fluoridation, legally identified as compulsory medication. The
Constitution amendment mentioned by Latham, states there cannot be "any
conscription" in dental and medical services".
(2) That democratic inclusion in the
Constitution actually prohibits compulsory mass medication by fluoridation.
Seems Mr Latham has his political fluoridation knowledge rather flummoxed!
What is the "official supreme claim" about
fluoridation that relates to Mr Latham's tears of despair relative to the
dental disaster in Australia?
The Fluoride Lobby including Mr Latham's
Australian Labor Party, have a Party Policy stating fluoridation is
important because of its great benefit to the disadvantaged population.
Is that a Policy of sound proven science,
and is it clearly evident in the Australian population covering all people?
And, if so, where are these beneficiaries of fluoridation when $400 million
immediate dental health is needed and a further $120 million each year to do
something that fluoridation is claimed to have succeeded in doing already.
The original dental, medical and political
fluoridation promises and guarantees are buried in sorcery gobbledegook,
encased in Australian Law!!! Some hide under it as Democracy and Truth by
Government.
Today's election buzz-word is TRUTH and
TRUST US!!
Perhaps after many years of compulsory
fluoridation, the past Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Malcolm Fraser,
answered the scientific fluoridation conundrum of political action when he
said:
"Life is not meant to be easy."
That sums up the political situation of
dealing with Parliaments and politicians. They can run but never hide!
Copy List
|
