THE FLUORIDATION HOAX BOX
"How dangerous can
By Glen S.R. Walker
A box full of fluoride
myths and unsubstantiated scientific nonsense. A
poor dental quality sales pitch by spin doctors for
human parrots to use.
The big Fluoridation
Push is on, Australia planned to become the only
country in the world to have exclusive compulsory
artificial fluoridation of all drinking water
supplies throughout the whole of Australia.
Let us look at the
SCIENTIFIC BASIS of this illegal medication and
drugging of a population.
The experts have
spoken! Let us examine the quality of their
Brisbane is the
centre-piece of their aggressive attack, obviously
to change this only Capital City in Australia
Brisbane is an
embarrassment to the fluoride pushers because it can
be used scientifically as a Control City in dental
research comparing all other fluoridated Capitals
throughout Australia. This could be bad.
alone in the History of Medicine and Politics
throughout the world of science, where honesty has
been abandoned for short-term commercial profit,
leaving the long-term problems to others, similar to
so many medicines, drugs, poisons, where future
generations are suffering - as in today's sad and
indeed disgusting evidence of over 100 years use of
asbestos, not forgetting thalidomide, D.D.T., Lead
in Petrol, etc. etc.
Admitting the dreadful
harm from asbestos, the health danger known for
about 100 years, we could fill pages with hundreds
of other drugs, medicines, treatments and chemicals
causing similar human disaster, but the Governments
and their Agencies are free of any accountability,
even though they alone are responsible for allowing
these into the public arena.
How is it humanly
possible for a doctor of medicine; any politician of
respectability to his electorate; any Prime Minister
as the country's first person of greatest trust; or
organisations such as the N.H. and M.R.C.; A.M.A.;
A.D.A.; Pharmacology; The Therapeutic Goods
Administration; Federal Parliament; State
Parliaments; Councils around Australia and
Universities, all of whom support the addition to
public drinking water supplies of toxic fluoride
by-product chemicals, that are not Registered or
Licensed for human use anywhere in the world?
Has Common Law been
deprived of its sacred character of human
protection, even if necessary for use against those
in positions of trust, enjoying the privilege of
power, supposedly on behalf of the people,
especially guarding that democratic important basis
of human rights in a democratic country?
People are the
Australian mushroom population in the eyes of the
Who is looking after
The fluoride mafia is
skilled in presentation, such as the articles
published in Brisbane newspapers about baby teeth
being "yanked out" because their water is not being
They present a picture
of mothers lined up each day at the hospital with
their babies to have all their "rotten" teeth
This is unique but
dishonest propaganda, when claiming this is
happening only in Brisbane.
The truth, which is
not of interest to the Brisbane fluoride
propagandists, is that in fluoridated Perth about 20
young children each week are having their teeth
The "West Australian",
24th July, 2004, published an article,
teeth spoilt rotten".
"Toddlers as young
as one are having general anaesthetics to remove or
crown rotten teeth."
note Brisbane people)
Perth has been
fluoridated since 1968 - a period of 36 years of
compulsory fluoridation, which makes fools of the
fluoride "experts" in Brisbane.
Capital City in Australia is having the same problem
with young children's teeth, which highlights the
erroneous fluoride propaganda published in Brisbane.
Perth, "toddlers as young as one are having general
anaesthetics to remove or crown rotten teeth."
24th July, 2004.
With dental decay
increasing throughout Australia "in spite of
fluoridation", the grand fluoride followers' claims
have decayed accordingly. We are now into a war of
words used by the fluoride mafia to "cover up" the
failure of compulsory artificial fluoridation.
Although there were
never any original "qualifications" relating to
their fluoridation claims, now after 50 years usage
in Australia, the dental fluoride disciples are in a
fierce battle of survival to cover up the myth of
fluoridation and their professional "integrity".
They limp from one
crisis to another, manipulating the public thinking,
ably supported by limitless media space and time,
with little permitted opposition.
History of Brisbane is interesting but quite typical
of all other cities and towns in Australia.
History repeats itself
in dental claims and their fluoridation statements,
laid to rest, but quickly resurrected at what "they"
see as an appropriate time, hoping people have
forgotten the past dismal performance of Brisbane
dentists during the 1980's.
The Brisbane Sunday
Mail, 2nd July, 1989, published an article
headed in very large print -
SURVEY: BRISBANE CAN SMILE
children's teeth are healthier than those in
Melbourne, where they have fluoride in the water
supply, according to figures released from the
Federal Health Department."
collected in a child dental health survey among
primary school pupils aged 5 to 13 show Melbourne
children drank fluoridated water, but had worse
tooth decay than Brisbane children on
This official Federal
Government dental data was published after a
concerted A.D.A. propaganda campaign attempting the
same tactics as today's effort of presenting
mythical dental statistics for and against
dental data relating to Brisbane children's teeth
was given prominence in another article Brisbane
Sunday Sun, 6th April, 1989 with this large
"OUR KIDS TOOTHY
children have fewer decayed, missing or filled teeth
than any other Australian children, Queensland
University researchers said today. Social and
Preventive Dentistry Department researchers,
Professor Robin Powell and Associate Professor Greg
Seymour, said the State's children had reached a
World Health Organisation tooth-decay elimination
target 10 years ahead of deadline.
said surveys showed the average 12-year-old had
fewer than two decayed, missing or filled teeth - or
caries is where children are put to bed with a sweet
drink in a bottle, causing their teeth to rot, Prof.
Today's story of
"young children in Brisbane having all their teeth
'yanked out' because of no fluoride in the drinking
water" is scientifically and statistically destroyed
by the Sunday Mail article that stated:
Brisbane, children's teeth are healthier than those
in fluoridated Melbourne.
"The number of
decayed, missing, indicated for extraction or filled
teeth in Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide was 1.1,
compared with 1.3 in Melbourne for the same period."
These kind of REAL
DENTAL FACTS was answered by Peter Ryan, Chairman,
Queensland Fluoridation Committee who said:
"A number of
factors could explain why Brisbane children's teeth
had less decay."
Before publishing his
expert dental explanation, note he admitted:
children had less decay."
Statement on Dental Decay
"Studies in the
U.S. have found that people living nearer the
equator have less decay, but no one is really sure
why." (The Sunday Mail, 2nd July, 1989)
Something strange has
happened during the 14 years since these data on
Brisbane children's teeth were so classified by the
Federal Government, and Ryan's equator story
"yanked" out of circulation.
Perhaps we may take
licence and suggest the quality of the Brisbane
teeth have not altered, but the type of research
studies has changed to rectify the obvious
embarrassment for dentists and the fluoride pushers
never stops, but they always saddle up again as
though nothing has proven them wrong.
When the Brisbane Lord
Mayor's Task Force researched fluoridation during
1997 the A.D.A. presented their claims which were
supported with a study by Spencer, Davies, Stewart
and Slade (Adelaide University).
experiences among children in fluoridated Townsville
and unfluoridated Brisbane." Published in
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
1966. Vol. 20 No. 6.
Reading their 7 page
official dossier presented to The Lord Mayor's Task
Force on Fluoridation, one finds on page 1:
reported on 11-12 year-olds with different fluoride
exposures in West Australia."
"He found higher
caries prevalence in the permanent dentition in
children in unfluoridated Bunbury than in children
in fluoridated Perth."
So, on page one we
find this study comparing populations of significant
differences, a matter of failure to comply with
rules of statistics which state such studies must be
performed only with very similar populations.
It is not
scientifically acceptable to compare populations of
such differences as Perth 1,244,320, Bunbury 28,000,
and also at the same time be aware and consider the
socio-economic factor that was also significantly
Their main dental data
related to Brisbane and Townsville, but here again
we find a scientific and statistical error in
comparing two cities of such different population
and socio-economic differences.
However, the authors
after attempting a favourable fluoridation outcome
with the Lord Mayor's Task Force, expected the
Committee to vote accordingly to fluoridate
Brisbane's drinking water supplies. The quality of
their presentation collapsed on the final page of
"A difference of
0.25 (one quarter) surface in the permanent
dentition probably constitutes a minor effect at the
level of an individual patient in the age range
On this kind of
official dental study showing a difference of one
quarter (1/4) of a tooth surface per child, we now
find the fluoride pushers want another similar study
in Brisbane. (Courier Mail, 21st July, 2004).
Is there a "hope" in
the fluoridation camp that they can again change the
"official" dental data and without REAL science and
proper statistics, declare fluoridation not only
safe and effective but teeth of Brisbane's children
have dramatically changed in the past 8 years?
Perhaps at this moment
the reader should consider the Lord Mayor's 1997
Brisbane Task Force on Fluoridation conclusion, page
showed the complexity of trying to separately
identify the benefits of water fluoridation alone,
as illustrated by the recent comparison study of
children in Brisbane and Townsville. (University of
were of vital health warning!
relating to what constituted a safe or toxic dose
of fluoride was uncertain and confusing. A
majority of Task Force members were concerned
that the margin of safety between a safe and toxic
dose may not be sufficiently wide."
Dental "studies" by
fluoridation dental hierarchy fail in their
conclusions because of five important factors, (1)
Pharmacology, (2) Statistics, (3) Dose, (4)
Examiners qualifications, (5) The high variables
Taken together or
separately, one finds the fluoridation data from the
fluoride pushers astonishing in size, intellectually
and scientifically unsubstantiated in their
audacious hope of their title, "The untouchables".
"untouchables" are intellectually impervious to any
scientific evidence relating to fluoridation which
is no surprise considering the "actual" content of
their team of promoters.
Fluoridation in this
democratic Country is a case of "political
transparency" being a one-way mirror.