By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
6. The NHMRC's failure to adequately cover the most recent literature indicating health problems, especially the studies relating fluoride exposure to the lowering of IQ in children.
In the small section in the NHMRC report which reviews other harms from fluoridation (pp 105-110), one of the York Review tables identified two IQ studies (Lin et al., 1991 and Zhao et al., 1996). However, the NHMRC search appears to have found no more. This is strange since had they actually read the NRC (2006) review, rather than dismissing its relevance, they would have found a whole chapter devoted to the brain, and in this they would have found three more IQ studies: Li et al., 1995; Lu et al., 2000; Xiang et al., 2003.
To make matters even worse, the NHMRC panel handled one of the two studies they do cite in a critically misleading fashion. They state:
"Lin (1991) found a significant association of combined low iodine and high fluoride with goiter and mental retardation." (my emphasis).
However, the level of fluoride in this study was not high at all, it was 0.88 ppm - i.e. less than 1 ppm! So not only did the NHMRC authors not take advantage of the research in the NRC (2006) review, which revealed the three extra IQ studies, but they haven't even read (or poorly read) one of the two IQ studies they actually do cite!
It should also be pointed out that the single sentence I have quoted above is the only reference they make to the fact that fluoride might damage the brain! |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:07 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
They state in their methodology that they only reviewed the literature in English published between 1996 and December 2006 so that gives them a possible excuse for ignoring the following studies: Seraj et al, 2006 (only the abstract was in English, the rest was in Persian); Trivedi, 2007; and Wang, et al., 2007. Even if they missed the chapter on the brain in the NRC (2006) report they should have been tipped off that this was an issue by the study by Zhao et al, 1996 (cited by the York Review) and listed in a table they reproduce. This study was published in the journal Fluoride. Serious researchers would have searched the archives of this journal - which are readily available on the internet - to see if this journal had published any more IQ studies since 1996 - and they have. They could also have found references to many of these studies had they bothered to visit our website. Under Health Studies, FAN has a whole section on fluoride and the brain - and it has been there for several years.
To have missed so much in the literature - and all the clues that it was there - would have been bad if we were talking about a term paper written by an undergraduate, but for a body on which a whole country is relying for health advice this is extremely shoddy research. But the more serious question is whether the handling of this issue by the NHMRC was a product of academic incompetence or a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Which is easier to believe?
However, whatever excuses people care to make to explain the NHMRC panel on this matter, this ignorance should go no further. Those who glibly cite this NHMRC review as an authority on fluoridation's safety should be warned that there are now TWENTY THREE published studies which indicate that fluoride lowers IQ in children and these have been subjected to two systematic reviews, Connett and Limeback (2008) and Tang et al. (2008). |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Nor does the matter end there. There are other Chinese studies which show that fluoride damages the fetal brain, as well as altering behavior of neonates and workers in the aluminum industry. Moreover, 12 Chinese studies on the brain (11 newly translated) have been reproduced in the journal FLUORIDE, so there is no excuse for government fluoridation promoters to continue to ignore this large body of Chinese work. In a future bulletin we will give a full citation list for all these studies on the brain, along with links where the full papers can be accessed.
Meanwhile, this NHMRC (2007) review is still being cited by fluoridation promoters in Canada (Dr. Peter Co0ney, Chief Dental Officer), the UK (Dr. Barry Co ckcroft, Chief Dental Officer) and the US (Dr. William Bailey at the CDC' Oral Health Division) as evidence that fluoridation is "safe." They will doubtless continue to do so, despite what I have written above, because, sadly like health authorities in Australia their agenda is to promote water fluoridation whatever the cost to public health. |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
The PHAA letter to the NHMRC.
Professor Warwick Anderson,
Chief Executive Officer,
National Health and medical Research Council,
GPO 1421,
CANBERRA, ACT 2601
20 February 2007
Dear Professor Anderson
Fluoridation Standards
The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) is a forum for the promotion of the health of the public as well as being a professional resource for public health personnel. The PHAA has a strong interest in Oral Health.
The PHAA notes that while State and Territorial governments have made significant commitments recently to progress water fluoridation in Australia, the lack of a current statement of support for water fluoridation by NHMRC is a substantial threat to this work.
Groups opposed to water fluoridation currently refer to the NHMRC response: |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
"The NHMRC does not have a separate formal statement about fluoridation of the water supplies" (1) as evidence of a lack of support for water fluoridation.
At the 162 session of the NHMRC in September 2006, members supported the publication of the NHMRC's support of water fluoridation. PHAA acknowledges that recent NHMRC selective tender for the conduct of a systematic review of fluorides and health in Australia will be the first step in addressing this responsibility for raising the standard of individual and public health.
The Public Health Association of Australia is keen to see this work expedited and would be happy to contribute towards the development of a statement supporting water fluoridation in order to help reduce the confusion around this issue. Equally we would be happy to participate in a public workshop around this issue, as discussed in the 162 session.
We would be happy to talk this issue over with you or your staff should you think that would be helpful. I can be contacted on (02) 62852373 or at plaut@phaa.net.au
Yours sincerely,
Pieta-Ray Laut,
Executive Director
20 February 2007 |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
It is now 90 years since Armistice Day, the day set aside to remember World War 1, the War to end all Wars.
Over 330,000 Australians enlisted in World War 1 and 61,000 died, a further 150,000 were injured.
In World War 2, there were another 39, 000 deaths and 39, 000 were also injured.
Australian men and women in other wars also laid down their lives to protect our country, our freedom and our way of life.
However, it now seems that these sacrifices were made in vain, because in Queensland with the present government we live in a dictatorship, where one person Anna Bligh, believes she can dictate to us that we shall be medicated through our water supply with fluoride chemicals and we shall have water that has been sourced from sewerage whether we like it or not.
Like fluoride, we have been fed millions of dollars of radio and Television advertising propaganda, with yet another propaganda campaign starting tonight.
We have been told that fluoride, a chemical waste product of Belgium and Japanese fertilizer industries is "natural" and that Queenslanders have the worse teeth in Australia, which is also untrue. Premier Bligh knows this, but still makes false claims.
We were also told that no Hospital or Industrial waste goes into sewerage, the future source of our water, yet now the government has been forced to admit that 12% of sewerage that will be sourced for human consumption is comprised of industrial waste.
The Health Department has been caught out changing tooth decay statistics, Premier Bligh has been made aware of this but apparently doesn't care.
However, as Premier Bligh was told by an angry gentleman at the Logan Q2 Forum in Oct, politicians who lie, get found out, then they get thrown out.
There is only so much arrogance the public will put up with. Roll on the State election!
Merilyn Haines - on behalf of all Queenslanders who want safe water.
Mob 0418 777 112 |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/11/2008
1:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
FAN Bulletin 1009: Southampton, UK: Fighting on a tilted playing field
Nov 13, 2008
Below we will be discussing how both Australia and the UK attempt to thwart genuine democracy on the fluoridation issue. First, let me thank all those who kindly offered to translate the Professionals' Statement into other languages. We already have offers under way for Danish, French, Italian, Spanish, German and Russian translations. So if you have friends and colleagues in any country speaking one of these languages please get your appeal letter ready for sending. We will post the translations on our home page as they appear.
Thwarting democracy.
We saw in the Nov 4 referenda in the US, as well as previous votes, such as in Juneau, Alaska, that when citizens are treated to a fair hearing of both sides of the fluoridation issue they tend to vote against the practice. This is why pro-fluoridation governments are very reluctant to give citizens this choice. They know it is highly likely that citizens will reject this outdated practice at the ballot box. Thus, it is interesting to see the different ways that pro-fluoridation governments circumvent the public's right to vote on this matter. Here I will compare the Australian approach and the UK approach. |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/11/2008
1:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Australia's blunt approach
State governments in Australia, especially in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, are very blunt about it. They simply deny the right of citizens to vote at all. In various ways they tell their citizens: "You are getting fluoride in your water whether you want it or not." They accompany this with the usual tactics:
-- They give solo presentations behind closed doors, but refuse to defend their position in open public debate.
-- They mobilize the medical and dental lobbies to provide their clockwork endorsements.
-- They put out fluffy propaganda brochures (nearly always blue and white with smiling children gracing the cover).
The astounding ignorance of these state governments is only matched by their arrogance. The most gross example of that arrogance was shown by Premier Anna Bligh of Queensland who came storming into her "appointed" position with mandatory fluoridation at the very top of her agenda. Hopefully, when citizens in Queensland get the chance to vote at the next election they will remember the way their democratic rights have been treated by this individual. |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/11/2008
1:48 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
The UK Consultation Process.
In the UK, the government has set up a more subtle way of circumventing the citizen's right to vote on fluoridation. They are setting up a "consultation process" whereby they provide the citizens the illusion of "participation." Such a participatory process would be welcomed if at the end of the day the citizens got to vote on the matter. In the British process the same officials who have made it clear that they wholeheartedly endorse fluoridation will make the final decision.
In Southampton, the pro-fluoridation "strategic health authority" (SHA) has set up an elaborate process which pretends to offers the citizenry a "say in the matter." The British have an exquisite talent for making an intrinsically unfair process appear fair. They didn't build a huge empire without a tremendous ability to do this.
Within the confines of a "participatory process" in which the outcome is pre-determined they can afford to be very even handed. For example, I have been invited to participate in three public meetings (October 20, November 18 and December 3). These public meetings feature two proponents (including the Chief Dental Officer of the UK) and two opponents. I am one of the latter. The press is calling these meetings "debates" but we are not being given the opportunity to make formal presentations. We are simply there to answer questions from the chair and the floor. I have to say that first meeting was scrupulously chaired by a well respected local radio host. |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/11/2008
1:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Even within these limited confines I hope we can expose what is going on and get local citizens angry enough to demand a vote on the matter. At the first meeting, even though the audience included a considerable number of employees from the pro-fluoridation local health authority, a show of hands indicated a sizeable majority was opposed to fluoridation, but this information didn't quite make it into the press accounts. Meanwhile, in what appears to be a carefully orchestrated PR campaign, local health bosses have already declared their support for fluoridation and the Southampton council voted 4 to 3 to go ahead with the program. So much for hearing from both sides before making up their minds!
However, the promoters are not getting all their own way in controlling this discussion. This is what a local MP wrote to the paper about the way he saw the process: |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/11/2008
1:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Fluoride - is it a crooked ballot?
November 2, 2008, Daily Echo
By Julian Lewis, Conservative MP for New Forest East
LAST month South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) sent me its public consultation document on adding fluoride to the water supply in some parts of our area. In section 5 we are told that "all views and comments, together with the best scientific evidence, will be taken into account" before any final decision, which "will not be based solely on a simple count of the representation for or against the proposal".
There is no doubt that highly qualified scientists disagree about the possible long-term effects on adults of adding a chemical to the water supply primarily for the benefit of infants. For that reason, I incline towards the "no" camp; "if in doubt leave it out" seems to me a sensible precaution where adding chemicals to everyone's water supply is concerned.
The problem with the SHA document is that its authors clearly have their mind made up. The pros and cons are supposedly set out on pages 15-23. The first page-and-a-half sets out the benefits without challenge. The remaining 7 pages set out the objections - but only to rebut them in each and every case. |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/11/2008
1:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Partiality
The prize for partiality must go to Southampton City Primary Care Trust, which has evidently spent shedloads of public money producing and distributing blatantly one-sided propaganda. My favourite is the glossy postcard (with prepaid first-class postage) for people to sign and send off to the SHA - despite the fact that the SHA says it will not be relying solely on the number of responses received.
We all know a crooked ballot when we see one - and this is a crooked ballot. The SHA reserves the right to disregard the numbers of people responding and to reply instead on its own assessments of the arguments deployed. Yet, they themselves have already indicated their complete rejection of the arguments deployed against fluoridation. They will undoubtedly use a flood of returned postcards - with little space to deploy arguments - to boost their already-made decision in favour for fluoridation, even though these had been unfairly generated by the abuse of public funds to promote only one side of the argument.
The Cabinet Office code of practice on such consultations requires that "Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed". This is clearly not happening. Has someone out there enough money to bring a court case to stop a tainted consultation leading to a tainted water supply? |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/11/2008
1:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
would add that the South Central SHA's public consultation document (referred to above) is very slick. Many unsuspecting citizens will be fooled. I will be reviewing the propaganda material in this brochure in a future bulletin because similar material is being used in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
More good news is coming from the New Forest District Council, which contains the town of Totton which will be affected by the plan to fluoridate. Interestingly the charge is being led by a former dentist, Tony Swain, who is on the Council. This is how the press reported the meeting where the New Forest District Council's Health and Wellbeing review panel, agreed that the authority should fight fluoridation.
Excerpt from: Former dentist raps fluoridation scheme
November 10, 2008, This is Hampshire
... Cllr Swain, who represents Lymington, said the first community to have fluoride added to its drinking water was Grand Rapids in Michigan, USA. "That was 60 years ago and we're still arguing about it," he said. "If it's so wonderful why hasn't it been done everywhere?"
Cllr Swain said people who wanted to guard against dental decay should brush their teeth three times a day and use a fluoride rinse. He added: "I wouldn't recommend people to drink a glass of fluoridated water because it wouldn't do any good at all. Fluoride has got to go on the teeth." |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/11/2008
1:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Lyndhurst councillor Pat Wyeth warned that there too many "unknowns" surrounding fluoride in drinking water.
Brockenhurst member Maureen Holding added: "Fluoride is a poison. We're told it can help people in small doses but I'm not sure that it does."
Members spoke out after studying a report produced by Annie Righton, the council's head of public health and community safety. She said: "I've worked in public health for 22 years and I don't think I've ever dealt with an issue as controversial as this."
Panel members agreed to urge the full council to oppose fluoridation.
In a separate debate, members of Totton and Eling Town Council described the scheme as an unwanted form of mass medication.
Former council chairman David Harrison said: "I'm totally opposed to proposals to add fluoride to the water."
"If I had any doubts about the matter they were quickly dispelled by the poor quality of the consultation undertaken by the health authorities. Instead of adopting a neutral, listening approach they have been engaging in the worst kind of spin." |
|
By: chuckanoo
15/11/2008
1:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
In a couple of days I will be of to Europe to participate in the second and third public meetings, Nov 18 and Dec 3, with a trip to Italy in between.
Paul Connett.
PS - When I get back in December we will be launching our annual fund raising effort. Those who wish to give us a much needed head start on this can make a tax -deductible contribution by going to FAN's secure online DONATE NOW site.
Meanwhile, don't forget to use this site for many of FAN's videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/fluoridealert |
|
By: ecten1
15/11/2008
5:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecten1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
yawn
you still arguing about this. It's only water, many people have been drinking flouride for decades without any problems. Get over it. |
|
By: casino_royale44r
15/11/2008
8:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
casino_royale44r Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
just wait to you start drinking bio chemicals and water that you flushed your poo away with.
you can treat it as much as you like but i sure the hell ain't going to use city water again when i visit the city. |
|
By: ecten1
17/11/2008
12:02 am Yahoo! Profile:
ecten1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| You're already doing it mate. The water we used has been natually recyled for thousands of years. We wee and poo the water down the toilet, which gets cleaned and forced into the sea. The sun then forces that same water up, to make clouds, which in turn rains into the dams, and we drink it again. |
|
By: ginandtonic1963
21/11/2008
4:29 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ginandtonic1963 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
why doesn't the government give out free fluoride tablets to those who want them?
************************* ************************* ********
they do give them out for free...or they use to!. my local council did it a few years ago. you just went up to the service desk and they handed them to you..i got them free for years...i don't know about now, but you could ring your local council and find out.. |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/11/2008
8:47 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
By ecten1 "You're already doing it mate. The water we used has been naturally recycled for thousands of years. We wee and poo the water down the toilet, which gets cleaned and forced into the sea. The sun then forces that same water up, to make clouds, which in turn rains into the dams, and we drink it again"
Which gets filterd out to make the water drinkable, and then they will be adding a 'known' toxic by-product (Fluoride) into the water we will be drinking!
When is Terrorism not Terrorism?
When Anna Bligh(t) opens her mouth!
What she is doing is Terrorism!
Anna Bligh, Terrorist!!! |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/11/2008
9:07 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
FLUORIDE EXPERT SPEAKS OUT
Posted by: admin November 20, 2008 Post a comment
Print This PostTags: Fluoride Posted in: Health, Science
"I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year." Dr. Dean Burk Ph.D. (34 years at the National Cancer Institute). Judicial hearing, January 14, 1982. Safe Water Foundation vs. City of Houston, District Court of Texas, Harris County, 151st Judicial District, 80-52271 http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000045.htm |
|
By: binj_inn
23/11/2008
12:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
binj_inn Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
People drink, smoke, take drugs, over eat, live in environments full of pollution and chemicals........ and then blame disease on fluoride in the water?
Madness. |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/11/2008
2:37 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
OPEN LETTER TO THE HEALTH MINISTER MR ROBERTSON , PREMIER BLIGH AND FELLOW QUEENSLANDERS
Below, is a copy of a notice on page 85 of the Courier Mail, Sat 1st Nov, 2008 (next to the ads for call-girls) A similar ad placed on page 87.
The notice says that fluoride will be added to our water from the 1st December
Advice from a Senior SEQ spokesman is that the notice was only published in ONE paper (the Courier Mail) and only on ONE day.
It is recorded in Hansard on the 12th Feb, 2008 Health Minister Robertson said "Water suppliers..... to publish a notice once in a newsaper with local circulation at least 30 days before adding fluoride to the water supply. This notification will ensure the public is informed of the impending fluoridation."
Mr Robertson, you have spent millions of dollars of taxpayer funds on promotion propaganda on TV, Radio and Newsaper advertising in Dec, Jan, Feb and March (even before legislation passed) and now you have started again. YET, you only place the Public Notice in ONE paper, and on ONE day and in a paper that everyone has to purchase, yet almost every household in SE Qld gets a free weekly paper. |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/11/2008
2:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
We call upon you to have some integrity, advertise again widely (in all free papers in SE Qld, and in the papers for specific areas, for example the Queensland Times in Ipswich and the Gold Coast Bulletin and Sunshine Coast papers) AND arrange to have it advertised by the Councils in SE Qld (that is who we pay our water bills to, not to SEQ Water). You have also not advised that small amounts of heavy metals, such as Lead, Cadmium and Mercury, is intended to be added with the Industrial grade Sodium Silicofluoride imported from Belgium. The deliberate addition of heavy metals is not allowed under the Act or current Regulation.
So, Mr Robertson, please start over again with a new 30 day notice; your actions and that of SEQ Water are not legitimate.
Your claims of effectiveness and safety are also not legitimate, as per all the evidence tendered to you and the Caretaker Premier.
Eight months later and we are still waiting for an explanation of why Qld Health falsified tooth decay data the Premier used to make her decision to force Fluoridation. The Crime and Misconduct Commission advised in February 2008, that the Health Dept would respond in due course. |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/11/2008
2:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Please respond before the 1st December 2008 as to why falsified data was used to justify forcing Fluoridation on 4 million Queenslanders.
If you intend to presently continue with your plans to Fluoridate, you must only use a Pharmaceutical grade Fluoride that does not contain heavy metals.
Message authorised by Merilyn Haines Spokesperson for Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc www.qawf.org
media contact
mob 0418 777 112
PO Box 149 ARCHERFIELD 4108 |
|
