John Ryan:
We talked about before about India and China. They have it naturally in there, and they know how bad it is. It belongs to the toxic chemical thing with aluminium and mercury and fluoride. They’re down that end as toxic chemicals and for many, many years before water fluoridation became popular, it was, a rat, a rat-sack. It was there to kill things. It’s poisonous.
PART 3: ACCOUNTABILITY
Sandra Camm:
It worries me that governments can see fit to mass medicate us by putting fluoride which is a toxic chemical waste into our water. As a housewife, I would like to ask, who is accountable for putting this in our water? You hear all of these abbreviations: ADA, AMA, NHMRC, etc. and so forth. Are there real people behind these companies? Do they have children? Do they have grandchildren? Do they care? Do they care about us, the community, who largely are uneducated on this hydrofluorisilicic acid, if I can say it? We don’t know. Who is apathetic here? Is it our so-called medical bodies? Have they really researched it? Have they looked into it? Let’s make them accountable. I want them to be accountable and let us know the truth.
Gillian Blari:
It should be the subject of is scientific testing. We need to have scientific testing, and that hasn’t been done. When fluoride was brought in here, in Australia, a lot of doctors and scientists were against it, and the tests to prove whether it was safe or not were discontinued before it was put in the water supply.
The NHMRC said, about 18 years ago, I think it was, that this stuff should be tested for efficacy and safety, and it’s never been done. I honestly believe that the authorities in Australia are turning their backs. What I cannot understand is why more doctors do not investigate this? This has been in the hands of dentists. Dentists don’t have the knowledge about the human body, and the other issue I cannot understand is why we have Nobel laureates in medicine who say that this is bad for the body, bad for the brain, bad for babies.
Sandy Sanderson:
Well, yes, we are very medically backwards. We are scientifically backwards, and I would even call it religious because what we are expected to do is believe something someone’s invented with no science backup, ignoring all the facts of the toxicity. If you’re supposed to believe something and ignore all the data and all the facts, then that, to me, is a religion.
I don’t want to base my life on a religious belief. I want the real science. I want the facts. I want this country. I want the Australian government to commission an independent study not funded by Colgate or any of the chemical companies or the companies making a profit from the fluoride, the phosphate, the chemicals. None of those companies should be involved.
Gillian Blair:
I cannot understand it. I really can’t. It’s a very unscientific attitude that’s being displayed by the Health Department, and it seems as if they care more about the fact that it might be revealed that they’ve made a mistake and maybe they might get sued by people who’ve been injured by fluoride and they are. In a way, it’s comparable to the cover up that went on about asbestos and cigarettes.
Sandy Sanderson:
It should be an independent commission, a study which is completely detached and autonomous to really look into the science, how much we are consuming, how much is in the food and the water and the pharmaceuticals so we actually know how much we’re getting. Otherwise, it’s all based on assumption and the risks of getting too much fluoride are so huge that it cannot be ignored.
Jaya Chela Drolma:
In 2007, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council released a report titled A Systematic Review of the Safety and Efficacy of Fluoridation. Fluoridation promoters and enforcers around the fluoridating world, particularly in Australia, have popped champagne corks ever since. On the surface, such reports from authoritative research bodies appear to present a solid case for fluoridation to the general public.
Prominent fluoridation promoters such as Premier Anna Bligh in Queensland, her possible successor, John Paul Langbroek, and Dr. John Carnie, Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, have cited this report, time and time again, to justify forcing fluoride on populations across the nation. Meanwhile, the gaping research gaps highlighted in previous international reviews, such as the 2000 University of York Review are ignored and spun by Australian promoters to suit their own ends.
Furthermore, truly in depth reports such as the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water, which does indeed set alarm bells ringing for the health dangers of fluoridation, are conveniently ignored, even by the Australian NHMRC Review!
Jaya Chela Drolma:
What are your views on the NHMRC report, and do you believe it addresses all fluoridation health concerns adequately?
David McRae:
No, no. It doesn’t. It was a report whipped up by two report writers in Sydney, small companies who were contracted by the NHMRC. They made a number of very big errors, and one of them was to leave out any studies on fluoride’s effect on kidneys or the effect of fluoride on kidney patients. Now, they were supposed to include a section on that. I’ve seen minutes of meetings where kidney fluoride studies were to be included, but in the final report they were mysteriously eliminated.
When it came to the cancer studies, particularly Dr. Bassin’s study of osteosarcoma and fluoride being responsible for Osteosarcoma, they dismissed that in about three lines, based upon a letter the editor written by Professor Chester Douglass, who said that there would later be other reports coming out of his office that will show that Bassin’s study wasn’t correct.
Well, it’s now five or six years after that time, and Dr. Chester Douglass has retired. He never produced these reports. So, the NHMRC relied on a very flimsy letter to the editor in order to make their claim that there’s no link between fluoride and cancer. So, to this day, Bassin’s study, showing that young boys have a much higher incidence of osteosarcoma if they’re exposed to fluoridated water, is the best science that’s ever been done on the subject. Yet, the NHMRC dismissed it, for no good reason.
Jaya Chela Drolma:
Unbelievable. When we see these rise in cancer rates and they refuse to look at perhaps a cause as being water fluoridation, as a toxic chemical, and like a neurotoxin. Yet, they dismiss.
David McRae:
It is unbelievable because you’d expect a body like Australia’s NHMRC to have the highest standards of scientific integrity, but it’s become apparent from just the two examples I’ve given, the kidneys and the bone cancer, that they had a goal to whitewash fluoridation and not to do a proper fearless study of the pros and cons.
Jaya Chela Drolma:
What are your views, Merilyn, on the NHMRC report, and do you believe it addresses all fluoridation health concerns adequately?
Merilyn Haines:
No, I think it’s a piece of garbage actually. I personally told the head of the NHMRC, Warwick Anderson, when he was in Brisbane, a couple of years ago, that it was a really crappy report because it was basically based on the York University Report of 2000, which was fine. They didn’t do any more work on it. They only added in bits on salt fluoridation and milk fluoridation, which is not about water fluoridation.
They never once looked at the cumulative effect of fluoride on people with kidney impairment, and yet, through freedom of information, we know that that was part of the tender that they were required to look at the effect of fluoride on people with a kidney impairment. They didn’t do it. There was not a word in the final report. They also only just barely touched on thyroid effects and that they said that fluoridation did not cause thyroid cancer. They never once touched on the effects that fluoride can decrease thyroid activity, and they have known this for a hundred years. There’s and hundreds of scientific publications linking fluoride to decreasing thyroid activity, not a word in the NHMRC report.
Sandy Sanderson:
It whitewashes many fluoridation concerns, and it didn’t even address all of the issues that were put to it by the government. It cherry picks the information. It doesn’t do any of its own studies. In fact the NHMRC is a government organization that actually employs other contractors to do that work.
Jaya Chela Drolma:
So ,what words of warning would you say to, first of all the viewers, and then secondly perhaps the authorities?
Merilyn Haines:
Do a proper review. Actually, look at people. Do the health and safety studies that have never been done. Do it properly. Do it decently.
Jaya Chela Drolma:
Without proper scientific rigor, such reports are not worth the paper they are written on.
Merilyn Haines:
This was a privately contracted review, and I think it had a pre-ordained result. Even the name of the report, the safety and efficacy of fluoridation? They never found it was safe, and it’s certainly not effective.
Jaya Chela Drolma:
So, if the so-called “science” of fluoridation is so weak, and the best reviews that promoters refer to are so flawed, how do they get away with it? How do people feel about this? What are the ethical implications? Some promoters have been more prominent than others. Dr. John Carnie, in Victoria, and Premier Anna Bligh, in Queensland, have come under particular scrutiny in recent years, by professionals and the public alike, as they spearhead Australia’s two most aggressive forced fluoridation policies in their respective states.
Diana Buckland:
I ask a lot of people, “Do you know what fluoride is?” They’ll go “Oh, no, but the dentists say it’s good for your teeth.” So, we’re talking mass ignorance of the population, but we’re talking absolute deviousness by the puppet masters of fluoridation, getting the governments to do whatever they want.
Jaya Chela Drolma:
The Health Fluoridation Act offers protection from rights of action for water supply authorities. If fluoridation is completely safe, why would such a pre-emptive legislative measure be necessary?
Peter Kavanagh:
Well, of course, it’s outrageous really isn’t it? You can’t sue the government for fluoridating your water, even if it’s shown to be harmful. I think that’s obviously wrong in principle isn’t it.
David McRae:
I think the time’s coming when that legislation will be challenged in court cases. Personally, I don’t think that’ll stand up. I think a good barrister would have a field day with a piece of legislation that tries to prevent poisoners from being responsible for their poisoning.
Jaya Chela Drolma:
What would you say to Premier Anna Bligh who has fluoridated, forcibly, the water of Queenslanders?
Caree Alexander:
She’s declared war on Queenslanders. She truly has. The wrong thing to do, and she will pay for that. If John Paul Langbroek gets elected, the same thing will happen to him. He will be disposed of. People are very angry and very annoyed the fact that they have to drink fluoridated water when only 5% of Queensland was fluoridated for so long.
Funnily enough it was Townsville, and I know people who practice in Townsville. They have tooth decay in Townsville funnily enough. They have a lot of tooth decay. So, no, Queensland was the smart state for quite a while. Now, it’s the join the club, dumb-down state. Crazy, not good for tourism either, by the way.
David McRae:
Now, not even a single doctor can force a single patient to take a medication; they have to get the consent of the patient. So, for example, for Dr. Carnie in Victoria, the Chief Health Officer, to claim that he has the right to force millions of people in Victoria to swallow fluoride medication every day via their kitchen tap, that’s way, way outside of his, what his ethical powers should be. It’s simply wrong.
Jaya Chela Drolma:
David, do you agree that mandatory water fluoridation merits reasonable limitation of individual rights?