THE FLUORIDATION HOAX BOX

"How dangerous can they get?"

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 statements.

Brisbane is the centre-piece of their aggressive attack, obviously to change this only Capital City in Australia without fluoridation.

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.

Fluoridation stands 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 fluoride mafia.

Who is looking after you?

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 fluoridated.

They present a picture of mothers lined up each day at the hospital with their babies to have all their "rotten" teeth "yanked out".

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 removed.

The "West Australian", 24th July, 2004, published an article,

"Children's teeth spoilt rotten".

"Toddlers as young as one are having general anaesthetics to remove or crown rotten teeth."

FACT: (Take 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.

Each fluoridated Capital City in Australia is having the same problem with young children's teeth, which highlights the erroneous fluoride propaganda published in Brisbane.

 

In fluoridated Perth, "toddlers as young as one are having general anaesthetics to remove or crown rotten teeth."

West Australian, 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.

The Fluoridation 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 -

CHILD TEETH SURVEY: BRISBANE CAN SMILE

"Brisbane 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."

"The figures 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 non-fluoridated water."

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 fluoridation.

Further official dental data relating to Brisbane children's teeth was given prominence in another article Brisbane Sunday Sun, 6th April, 1989 with this large heading:

"OUR KIDS TOOTHY WONDERS"

"Queensland 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.

Professor Powell said surveys showed the average 12-year-old had fewer than two decayed, missing or filled teeth - or DMF.

Nursing bottle caries is where children are put to bed with a sweet drink in a bottle, causing their teeth to rot, Prof. Powell said."

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:

 

In fluoride-free 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:

"Brisbane children had less decay."

Peter Ryan's 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!

Serious scientific 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).

"Caries 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:

"Riordan 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 different.

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.

The Population Factor

BRISBANE 1,000,000 -TOWNSVILLE 90,000

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 their "Research".

"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 studied here."

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 88-5:

"Research evidence 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 Adelaide)."

Further conclusions were of vital health warning!

"The evidence 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." (Emphasis added)

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 never considered.

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".

The fluoride "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.