|
Copy List
FLUORIDATION VALIDATION
The Unknown
Scientific Factor in Fluoridation
By Glen S.R. Walker
We can validate our
data but there is no scientific fluoridation
validation by Governments, Medical and Dental
Associations, N.H. and M.R.C T.G.A. and Universities
in their claims of scientific proof of human safety
from ingesting sodium silicofluoride or
hydrofluorosilicic Acid mixed into drinking water
supplies. These two fluoride chemicals used to
"Compulsory" fluoridate drinking water supplies are
officially classified as a "medicine", a "drug".
(Therapeutic Goods Administration - August 2002,
Edinburgh High Court 1980).
If officialdom is your
required confirmation, please consider the following
data, documented in the Australian National Health
and Medical Research Council publication 1994,
remembering Fluoridation uses a medicine.
"General
Guidelines for Medical Practitioners on Providing
Information to Patients
The National Health
and Medical Research Council
The National Health
and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is a statutory
body with the portfolio of the Commonwealth Minister
for Human Services and Health, established by the
National Health and Medical Research Council Act
1992.
The NHMRC advises
the Australian community and Commonwealth, State and
Territory Governments on standards of individual and
public health, and supports research to improve
those standards.
The NHMRC advises
the Commonwealth Government on the funding of
medical and public health research and training in
Australia and supports many of the medical advances
made by Australians.
The community
recognises that patients are entitled to make their
own decisions. In order to do so, they must have
enough information about their condition,
investigation options, treatment options, benefits,
possible adverse effects of investigations or
treatment, and the likely result if treatment is not
undertaken. It is not possible, however, to provide
complete information or to predict outcomes or
assess risks with certainty, and patients need to be
aware of this uncertainty.
There is a
community recognition that patients are entitled to
make their own decisions about their medical
treatment. These decisions will need to be based on
information and advice given by the doctor."
The patient - you the
consumer of fluoridated water - has never been
consulted or examined or your blood tested, by a
medical doctor before being medicated with
fluoridated water!
High Court of
Australia
"The issues
discussed will affect everyone at some time in their
lives, and it is proposed that the document be
circulated widely among health professionals and the
general community.
The legal duty
of a doctor to give information about medical
interventions, especially about material risks, was
emphasised by the High Court of Australia in
November 1992."
When the High Court of
Australia enters the arena of medication (compulsory
fluoridation), one could expect an intelligent
reaction by our politicians, but they fear "The
Party" instructions!
"While it is
recognised that these guidelines might be consulted
in legal proceedings, it is not their purpose to set
mandatory standards of behaviour in giving
information. Rather it is to foster better
communication between doctor and patient, so that
patients are able, with their doctors, to make the
best decisions about their medical care."
So, the High Court of
Australia is to be ignored!
"This document
provides general guidelines outlining information
which should normally be given to patients to help
them make informed decisions about proposed
investigations or treatment. No set of guidelines
can cover all the circumstances surrounding
relationships between patients and doctors, and
these guidelines do not attempt to describe the
quality of relationship which should be developed.
WHY?
"In June 1989, the
Australian, New South Wales and Victorian Law Reform
Commissions published a report entitled 'Informed
Decisions about Medical Procedures'. The Victorian
Law Reform Commission had earlier begun an inquiry
into informed decision making about medical
interventions because of the growing recognition
that patients should have more information than they
had customarily been given to allow them to make
decisions about their treatment and because of a
lack of clarity in the law concerning information
which should be given by doctors to patients.
In 1986 to 1987 the
Victorian Law Reform Commission had conducted
empirical studies examining doctors' attitudes to,
and practices in, giving information to patients,
and into patients' experiences and expectations in
receiving information from doctors. It was concluded
that doctors were giving patients less information
than they wanted, and on occasion less than was
required to fulfil the common law standard of
reasonable care. It was felt that an attitude
prevalent among doctors, that the patient's best
interests were served if doctors decided what
information to give and what treatment was best,
needed to change."
Note the final
sentence: ... "if doctors decided what information
to give and what treatment was best, ..."
Here we have the
"centre of care" Compulsory Artificial Fluoridation
promotion - the Government deciding what you should
consume but failing Common Law and pharmacology.
"Careful and
conscientious adherence to the guidelines may on
occasion demand extra time (for example, to ensure
that key information has been grasped and retained)
with attendant cost implications."
The principle of
handling correspondence on fluoridation by
politicians and other responsible people in
privileged positions of trust seems strangely
related to "may demand extra time" that
mostly extends to the "never never".
"The guidelines
reflect the common law right of legally competent
patients to make their own decisions about medical
treatment, and their right to grant, withhold or
withdraw consent before or during examination or
treatment. The guidelines do not change the law, nor
do they set a mandatory standard."
The only conclusion
one can gather from the NH and MRC document is that
Common Law relative to people being medicated
in a Government Compulsory manner is nothing more
than an embarrassing short-term event and medicine
by medical examination is of no concern to those
directly involved. It is in reality only window
dressing, even though it is medically illegal
(Common Law).
To expand on the
N.H.M.R.C. data it should be noted with serious
concern, the information relative to members of the
N.H.M.R.C.
"The Council
comprises of nominees of Commonwealth, State and
Territory health authorities, professional and
scientific colleges and associations, unions,
universities, business, consumer groups, welfare
organisations, conservation groups and the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission."
But never a member
from those opposing compulsory medication of public
drinking water supplies delivered into every home
via their kitchen tap.
That would rock the
fluoride boat, some occupants may fall overboard!
The Australian Medical
Association in their book, "Code of Ethics" state:
"Every patient
has the right to expect a complete and thorough
examination into his condition and that accurate
records will be kept."
Before you were forced
to drink fluoridated water, were you medically
examined by a doctor, the medicine, fluoridated
water, scientifically explained and a guarantee
given that there will be no short-term or long-term
side effects?
Question
Could it be possible
that fluoridation is part of Public Reports in 1999
that "10,000 Killed by Medical Errors", "More than
80,000 hospital admissions each year were caused by
medication".
Fluorides are not
listed as possibilities BECAUSE fluoride examination
of patients blood is a "no, no" in the health world
of medicine and human care. If you do not look, you
can claim "no evidence".
Copy List
|
