I read with
interest your article in
The Advertiser on fluoride. While I was disappointed with
the lack of investigative fact behind the story, I must say I
was not surprised.
The reference to ‘mass
medication’ was actually the statement of the European Court
of Justice in May 2000. This was a landmark judgment in the
ongoing debate about the breach of human rights when
governments add substances to the water supply to treat a
condition rather than to improve the quality of the water. No
conspiracy here, but the legal finding of a court.
I am curious to know how you
are qualified to report on ‘bad science’. At last count there
were 3,147 health care professionals world-wide who have
signed a petition to ban the fluoridation of water supplies
and 14 Nobel Prize winners in science and medicine are on the
public record opposing fluoride. So to use the term “bad
science” in your article is putting into disrepute those who
are far more qualified that you or me to make a judgment on
the science of fluoride. Again, no conspiracy here, just the
scientific and medical research available in hundreds of
published, peer reviewed papers – 23 of which are on the
effects that fluoride has on reducing the IQ of children and
also altering the behaviour of children. Please find enclosed
a bibliography of just some of the scientific and medical peer
reviewed papers that have been published.
The statement of Dr. Doolan
that the World Health Organization endorsed the use of
fluoride is not quite accurate. In fact the World health
organization recommended that:
“To
determine when it is appropriate to fluoridate is a matter
that requires the prior determination of prevailing fluoride
intake from all sources including drinking water, food and the
general environment.”¹
This was not done before
introducing fluoride to Mt. Gambier or any other jurisdiction.
The endorsement of WHO was conditional, a fact that Dr. Doolan
failed to mention.
Regarding SA Health’s
referral to the National Health and Medicine Research
Council’s (NHMRC) endorsement of fluoride, this was also
somewhat misleading. In 1991 the NHMRC report, page 12 it
states:
“It is
desirable to explore in rigorous fashion whether the vague
constellations of symptoms which are claimed to result from
ingestion of fluoridated water can be shown to be reproducibly
developed in these susceptible individuals. These claims are
being made with sufficient frequency to justify well- designed
studies which can properly control for subject and observer
bias.”²
Of course no such studies
were undertaken in Australia before the expansion of
fluoridating water supplies, despite this recommendation.
You also stated that I said
there was a ‘cover up’ and that we were drinking poison in our
water. This is not my opinion, but in fact, a statement of
WHO. In order for sodium fluoride to be exported WHO insists
on the labelling of those bags as an S6 poison and states
clearly that it is a herbicide, pesticide, fungicide and
rodenticide. Sodium fluoride accumulates in the body. When we
ingest fluoridated water our body expels less than half of
what we ingest, the remainder is stored in our bones, muscle
tissues and organs. This is science and medicine not a
conspiracy theory. Fluoride is used in a number of anti
psychotic medications and that is also on the public record
for all to see.
Surely as a person who
influences public opinion, it behoves you to at least read
something on this issue rather than follow instructions and
put out a propaganda piece.
I certainly couldn’t care
less that you would choose to write about me in a demeaning
and sarcastic manner, but when it comes to not investigating a
topic that could well be a major health concern then I do
care. There are medical professionals all around this country
who are documenting the frequency of fluoride poisoning and
what symptoms are prevalent and I hope that when those
findings are released you will be more diligent with you
information dissemination that you have been with this story.
Dr. Doolan also stated that
‘the fairytales’ were doing the rounds again. He actually
stated in that interview that these ‘rumours were 40 years
old’ which was surprising given that many of the studies have
only been published since the late 1980s.
I hope that you will at least
read through some of the information and watch the DVD that
has been provided to you in this pack in order to be more
informed yourself and not just content to write an article
that itself is based on poor investigation, ‘bad science mixed
with hocus pocus and a dollop of pure nonsense.’ If there is a
health concern about fluoridating public water supplies then
surely it is our responsibility to raise the issue and expect
that there would be some inclination to investigate based on
the science and medicine.
Yours sincerely,
Hon Ann Bressington MLC
¹World
Health Organisation, Fluorides and Oral Health, 1994
²National
Health and Medical Research Council, The Effectiveness of
Water Fluoridation, 1991
Daniel
Dear Tory,
I had the pleasure of reading your
unreferenced article today,
Be afraid, be very afraid.
It's nice to see
that the fluoride lobby and its corporate media lackeys are
attempting to be more creative with their insults -
'attempting' being the key word (with all that money, one
would think they'd be able to afford better writers).
However, being a
nice guy, I feel obliged to offer you the opportunity to
submit a public retraction. When water fluoridation is finally
banned - which is inevitable - your professional image will
not be helped by the record showing your embarrassing lack of
knowledge about the subject and your willingness to parrot the
line of thoroughly discredited 'authorities'.
Here's
some food for thought to help you out (see
comments and links
throughout your
original text):
THERE'S something lurking in the water. Be afraid, be very
afraid.
Well, that's the
message from the fluoride conspiracy theorists - with
Independent MLC Ann Bressington leading the charge, the first
on the beach to sense impending doom.
Actually, the
American Dental Association beat Bressington to it:
"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."
She's wrong. There
is no great danger the authorities are covering up, just the
equivalent of a mischievous kid with a cut-out fin strapped to
his back.
I guess your
definition of 'serious' is rather unique.
Others seem to have
different interpretations of this word. It also seems that you
have researched the subject thoroughly - "She's wrong" - I
admire your confidence to dismiss all of Bressington's
concerns with such an unreferenced statement. Since we're on
the subject of dismissing concerns, perhaps you would so kind
as
to answer the questions
put to Victoria's Chief Health Officer Dr. John Carnie, last
year. Unfortunately, Dr. Carnie has thus far been unable to
answer them. It would be lovely if you could publicly answer
these questions/dismiss the authors' concerns on Dr. Carnie's
behalf. NB. The
authors
of these questions and also their
follow-up letter.
Water fluoridation
has a long and muddied history of facts fighting fraudulence,
fear and obfuscation.
You actually
got something right. Congratulations! Water fluoridation
does
have a muddied history of facts fighting fraudulence. You've
obviously read
this book.
I like people who read widely. Here's
another book you should read,
whenever you have the time. I'm sure you'll do the public the
honour of composing and publishing a full review of the
aforementioned book, as soon as you get around to reading it.
Your deep insights will, I'm sure, be a valuable contribution
to the issue. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your review.
If you would like to contact the authors for further
information, you may like to start with
this guy. Apparently, he knows a
thing or two about chemistry. Your depth of knowledge may be
invaluable for his future publications and those of his
co-authors.
On the one side
are the conspiracy theories, which are wild enough to rival
tales of anal probes from little grey men and Elvis shooting
JFK from the grassy knoll.
I understand
your frustrations.
These conspiracy theorists
and their
unqualified friends
can be so annoying to those such as yourself, who are
concerned with real research. It's so important to be
qualified
to make
such comments.
You know, you should find
this guy's email address and
tell him the truth - that there's nothing to worry about and
that fluoridation is completely safe and effective and that
fluoride
must be swallowed to prevent tooth
decay. It is important he understands this fact, no matter
what the the
JADA says. Try this link to
contact him
via his employer.
Take case in
point, Ms Bressington, who told radio station FIVEaa that
there was a "cover-up", that we are "drinking poison in our
water". Not just any poison, but "rat poison" that lowers
children's IQs, mimics or causes ADHD, increases the risk of
bone cancer, causes chronic fatigue, "mental dullness" and gut
problems. It even rots teeth, she says.
Claims
of IQ
reduction,
claims
of
cancer
risk increases, claims that
fluoridation chemicals
are
actually poisons
- even
rat poison,
gut
related
problems,
and so forth. I mean,
where's the basis
for any of this? Crazy stuff.
No credible authors
at all behind
such claims,
of course.
"Fluoride is not
being added to the water to improve its quality, it's being .
. . used to treat a condition, therefore it is a medication
and they are mass medicating and do you know a lot of
anti-psychotic drugs have a fluoride base?" she said.
Some would disagree with you,
but what the heck would they know, 'eh?
"So, fluoride
actually dulls people and I think it was Bertrand Russell way,
way back when he said there will come a time when it will be
physically, emotionally and mentally impossible for people to
rise up . . . so I will leave you with that."
I think
Huxley
said something similar.
Charming
men.
FIVEaa's Leon
Byner, who has picked up the campaign with gusto, is also
voicing advertisements from Waterways - an SA company who just
happen to sell fluoride removal systems for a mere $735.
Waterways tells
The Advertiser business has been chugging along quite nicely
in the wake of the controversy, thank you very much, with one
salesman saying, "Every time Leon gets on about it we sell a
few systems".
Only those
who can afford them,
of course. Of course, in addition, we all know how 'high
quality'
the evidence for reducing inequalities is.
Most of what Ms
Bressington and other proponents of the
the-Government-is-trying-to-sedate-us-all theory are saying is
bunkum. Like many conspiracies, it's an extraordinary melange
of bad science mixed with hocus pocus, a few kernels of truth
taken out of context and iced over with a dollop of pure
nonsense.
Yes, the
pro-fluoridation
science is much more current
and credible.
SA Health offered
a rather drab reassurance that the good folk of Mt Gambier
would not notice any difference in taste or quality, and that
it was a safe and effective public health measure.
No doubt
SA Health mentioned the
pathetic
NHMRC Review. Or perhaps they've
done some original studies of their
own. If so, they'd be
the first.
They reminded us
that the World Health Organisation and the National Health and
Medical Research Council endorsed the use of fluoride.
Unfortunately, if you believe the New World Order is coming,
you probably also believe that these faceless organisations
are run by drones who report only to the Grand Poobah.
Perhaps SA
Health would care to confirm whether they have followed this
advice from the WHO:
"Dental and
Public health administrators
should be aware of the total fluoride exposure
in the population before introducing any additional fluoride
programme for caries prevention."
Since you're
such a great researcher, perhaps you should ask them. Dr.
Carnie may also like to have these studies because he's yet to
conduct them in Victoria, even after being
publicly reminded
to do so. Perhaps the WHO itself could be reminded to contact
the Swedish government; evidently,
no-one has shown them the science
that would change their mind. Maybe the WHO can?
SA Dental Service
director Dr Martin Dooland fired up later on radio, sounding
clearly frustrated that the same old fairytales were doing the
rounds again.
Oh no, please
tell him to stop listening to Dr. Carnie. Dr. Carnie has been
know to produce
magic with his fairytales.
Water fluoridation
does not cause cancer or allergies.
Then Dr.
Dooland won't mind preparing a scientific paper
countering Dr. Waldbott's claims.
He should refer to the work of
Dr. Spittle also.
By the way, we're all still awaiting the Chester Douglass
publications
defending his handling of the
Bassin study. Pity Douglass is now retired.
Yes, too much
fluoride can cause fluorosis - white flecking - on the teeth.
Did Dr. Dooland mention that dental
fluorosis is
not just a cosmetic effect?
Fluoride itself
comes in a range of forms and maybe some of those are toxic.
But the stuff we've been drinking here for decades is fine,
and we have better dental health because of it.
Interesting
to note that "the stuff"
we've been drinking all reads,
on respective MSDS's, 'Do Not Ingest';
and that
it's actually
industrial waste.
What the whole
broohaha is masking is what is arguably a more important
argument about individual rights. There is a valid ethical
debate over whether the Government should be able to put
something in the water supply without our consent.
You were
really onto some
truth
there...
But it's either in
there or it's not and the health benefits of having it
outweigh the largely imaginary risks of not having it.
... Until you
took the Nazi-like autocratic defense above. Luckily,
some still remember that true patriots will always rise up
against criminal regimes
like the one you and Dr. Dooland serve daily as what those who
are truly informed affectionately refer to as, "corporate
whores."
If you're going to
expend energy arguing about the State Government inflicting
things unwillingly on the public, there are plenty of better
targets for your outrage.
Thanks for
the tip, but I'll stick to water fluoridation one of the
easiest frauds to expose
(for anyone with half an active brain cell that it).
No offense,
Tory.
Daniel
(Full Name and Address Supplied)
Paul
Connett PhD
In her vitriolic piece Tory Shepherd
has fairly faithfully reproduced the government's propaganda
on fluoridation. For those who are interested in a more sober
and balanced view on this subject I would urge them to read
the book I have just co-authored with James Beck MD, PhD and
H.S. Micklem, DPhil (Oxon). In this book we show that the
literature does not support promoters' exaggerated claims of
benefit and there is a totally inadequate margin of safety to
protect all our citizens from known health effects of
fluoride. It also documents the atrocious lack of science that
has propelled this foolish practice for over 60 years. This is
especially the case in Australia which has conducted virtually
no primary health studies of its own,
relying instead on second-hand, self-serving and selective
reviews like the recent one from the NHMRC (2007). The absence
of study does not mean absence of harm! Shepherd would do well
to read "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste
Entered Our Water Supply and the Bad Science and Powerful
Politics that keep it there" (Chelsea Green, pub.). It
can be ordered and read online at
www.Amazon.com.
Paul Connett,
PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network,
Phillip
