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?

 

Brian Allen:

Originally, I was in Bacchus Marsh when they put fluoride in the industry, and I’m here to simply warn the community and help other people understand what is going on around them. Initially, when they put fluoride in the water, I was sold a bill of goods that was not true, false. As a consequence, the longer I lived, the more I suffered. I developed all sorts of heinous diseases, bone density problems, thyroid problems, liver, kidney damage, diabetes without proper diagnosis and without proper treatment. I found that it was a waste of time going to the medical profession for help.

 

Frank Parsons:

Fluoride is documented as causing renal damage, and Brian was one of the first people in Victoria to be exposed to fluoridation in the water. It’s hard to isolate exact causes of organ damage, but his shows also associated gastrointestinal impairments. So, it’s reasonable to think that fluoride played a role in it.

 

Merilyn Haines:

Probably about 25 years ago, I read an article on water fluoridation. I very quickly realized what a con it was. It didn’t work. It’s a poison. It’s being put in our water supply and it harms people, and I vowed there and then when I read this article that if it ever happened to our water supply, I’d walk the streets.  I didn’t want that going into my family’s drinking water.

About that time, unbeknownst to me, my sister was living in Townsville for about four years. As soon as she got to Townsville, she had massive problems with dermatitis. She was going to university. She would come back here every university holidays and her dermatitis would clear up. She’d go back there and break out again. It was really painful and distressing to her. We would send her up all these various creams and potions and things and nothing happened. She’d go to dermatologists and nothing would help.

Just before she was about to leave Townsville, to come back to Brisbane, this doctor said to her that she might havea fluoride allergy. She didn’t even realize that Townsville’s water was fluoridated. That basically confirmed my opinion that we do not want this in our water.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

So, perhaps you could expand a little bit on the financial risks that fluoride has actually caused you to take.

 

Scott Sheerin:

Well, for starters, I’ve had to get in large amounts of drinking water. There’s actually nine in my house, all up in a very small house. You don’t actually realize how much water you actually use in just everyday living. At one stage, I was actually trying to wash the clothes and bathe the children in proper drinking water, but it’s just too expensive. I’m on a carer’s pension where we struggle. We just hold the fort, money-wise, and this is a massive burden financially on me.

I’ve had to get a small tank in, which we get water off our roof, but with the amount of companies around Geelong, spewing toxic waste onto our air shed, I don’t even know how safe that is and I have no way of testing it. So, I’ve had to go back to washing our clothes and bathing our children in a carcinogenic soup that our government tells us that is good for us. It formerly used to have to be dumped in toxic waste sites.

 

Olive Pilcher:

It was every time I went to Melbourne and had a cup of tea and the vegetables were boiled in the water. It just swelled my face and lips and tongue and throat. Every time.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

You don’t go out?

 

Olive Pilcher:

No.

 

Edward Pilcher:

We don’t. No. I can, but Olive can’t so it restricts me where I can go because I like to do things with my wife. So, if we buy anything at all it’s usually say fish and chips. It doesn’t end up involving water, but anything that involves being cooked in water in fluoride water is a no, no.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

So, that’s a very restrictive lifestyle because of the fluoride poisoning.

 

David McRae:

I’m very excited to see that there are people who refuse to pay their water bills now when their water becomes fluoridated. That’s an extreme step, but I think it’s a very valid and reasonable way of taking non- violent but very strong action to show that you won’t tolerate being poisoned by water authorities and by governments.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

Apparently, these people are now criminals because they’re not paying their water bills. Haven’t they got a right to refuse water that they don’t want to drink or bathe in?

 

David McRae:

Yes. They should have that right and we should not have to pay for water that we’re trying as hard as we can not to use, and having to spend a lot of our own money to organize our filtration systems and alternative supplies of water.

 

Malcolm McClure:

Those people voted up in Mildura, and one of the things they voted for was to exercise a sanction.  That sanction was that they not pay rates in protest, not only water rates but land rates as well. So, they’ve created for themselves a legal entitlement to not pay the rates. Now, that’s quite unique, and, of course, that’s radical.

However, this is a radical problem requiring quite an appropriate response. Now, when somebody   forcefully medicates, it’s a violation of a human right, a fundamental human right of consent. That violation cannot go unanswered. It’s not for the government to decide for us what’s right and wrong for us when it comes to our own bodies. It must be, we the people that have an informed consent.

 

David McRae:

So, medicating the water with fluoride does violate every individual’s freedom of choice? Yet, for some reason, governments take it on themselves to think they have the right to run a health program that overrides everybody’s normal medical-free choice and right to informed consent. So, it’s a kind of medical tyranny.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

So, where do you see this heading for your family, the situation that you’re in with your family?

 

Scott Sheerin:

Well, it looks like if the government’s going to take legal action against me, especially in a commercial court where my story won’t be heard. It’s just, do I owe the money? “Pay up. If you don’t pay up we’ll take your house.” I am going to have to fold on my non-payment, which I was just trying to get the government to listen to me. I thought maybe someone would listen if I didn’t pay the bill, but I am going to get railroaded there. I know that. I’m scared shitless of losing my house. It’s the only thing I’ve got. It’s a roof over my children’s head.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

You feel that all of this has been caused because you simply refuse, that you’ve been railroaded into having to pay for water that has a chemical that actually, your daughter, particularly, is severely allergic to, and all of this has been caused because of that?

 

Scott Sheerin:

Well, the way my daughter is with her compromised system after the year-long chemo. I mean, her kidneys, her thyroids, they wouldn’t be able to handle it. It’d wipe her out. I can’t allow her to have one drop, and because I know it’s so deadly, even for my other children, I can’t allow them to have it. I’ve done the research. It accumulates in your bones.

 

Ann Bressington:

We also know that we only excrete between 20% and 50% of the fluoride that we ingest. It is bioaccumulative. That means that the remainder of the fluoride in our system, collects in our bones, in our muscles and in our soft tissue.

We now know. There is information out there to show that our aboriginal people are highly sensitive to fluoride because of their small kidneys. Are we going to stop with this genocide of our aboriginal people and making the rest of the community ill? Are we going to take a stand and say, “Stop now,” or are we going to wait until this is too late, until it’s gone too far? It will take us decades, decades to recover from the damage that’s been done.

 

Marilyn Pollard:

I don’t really have a social life, most of, my friends, I haven’t got any. I’ve only got two friends, and they’ve stuck by me, especially one of them. He’s been just absolutely amazing, and I’ve got my mother who I do care for. So, that’s like social contact. I’ve got a special needs young adult son, and so, that’s virtually my social life.

I’m helping them and doing things for them. No more Saturday lunches with friends because I just can’t go to a pub or a restaurant and eat the meals there. I just get very sick and my friends just don’t understand it because it’s just like a peanut allergy.  Not everybody is allergic to the fluoride, or has any problems with it. So, my friends, they’re okay, and they just cannot understand how I’m so sick. Yes, it’s very hard for them to wrap their heads around it. So, they’ve just walked away, and I just hole up here. I’m a prisoner in my own home. I’m safe here, without the exposure.

 

Merilyn Haines:

It’s very unethical. It goes against all the principles of informed consent for a start, medical informed consent. How dare they? I mean they put these chemicals, industrial waste products, into our water ostensibly to treat our teeth, to decrease tooth decay, or prevent tooth decay, which doesn’t work, by the way.

I mean, if you go, if you’re a patient and you go to a doctor. The doctor will assess your need, offer you a medication. They will follow you up. They will have a dose for you whether you’re a child or an adult or an elderly person. You know, if you have specific medical conditions that may not be suitable. They won’t put you on that drug. They’ll put you on a different drug. This is never considered with fluoridation. You know we have the right to choose our medication and this goes against that completely.

 

Philip Robertson:

In terms of where we should be heading with fluoridation, critically, there is a need for research in the safety of the treatment. First and foremost, even more than the effectiveness of it because at the moment from the clinical studies that I’m seeing with patients, they appear to be getting affected by the fluoridated water and often badly. Fluoridated water is indeed um a risk to their life, and that is not only recognized by their, by myself, and the patients and their families, but also by their dentists and doctors, are also very aware that this is the case. So it is critical that the government starts working towards resolving this question about its safety.

No doctor should ever be giving a treatment totally unaware of the safety aspects of it.   Secondly, the safety aspects are not being pursued, not being looked at. That is completely unprofessional for any practitioner to pursue such a line of irresponsibility with their own treatment of patients, and for the government  to  be  giving a treatment  where  they  appear  also  to  be  not pursuing the aspects of, “Is our treatment of the community by fluoridating their water safe?” is quite irresponsible, as to say when I’ve pursued that with health authorities and said could they do studies into the safety with patients who a appear to be getting sick. Then, so far, there’s been a complete refusal to do any such assessment.

 

Peter Kavanagh:

In terms of what I’ve done, I did actually get a private members bill past the Upper House of Victorian Parliament at the end of 2007. The private members bill would have required the Victorian Government to obtain the consent of affected people before new areas, new parts of Victoria could be fluoridated. It passed the Upper House, which was quite an achievement, but the government, I would say, probably sabotaged it in the Lower House and saw that it didn’t get anywhere there. So, unfortunately, it didn’t become law, but I feel there was something of a moral victory to get it passed in one house anyway.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

So what symptoms do you actually get from continuing to use fluoridated water?

 

Marilyn Pollard:

Okay. Headaches, itchy skin, if I wash my hands all day with the water, they’ll just go red and feel like fine grade sandpaper. Then, the skin will just start splitting open and bleeding. These days when I have my once a week shower, I usually vomit within the first 24 hours, and I’m in bed for two days because I just can’t move, wobbly legs, dizziness, just extreme exhaustion and the brain is just not working at all.

 

Philip Robertson:

The American report, which recommended the testing be done, was just reflecting the identical request from the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1991 that said that testing into sensitivity to fluoride must be carried out. As a result, the NHMRC now appear to be going against their earlier recommendation without that testing ever having been done. From the clinical evidence, it appears that that was a rather bad oversight on their part. So, the American research in 2006 is now recommending that that be done again, and this is where, of course, it would result in an explanation as to why people are getting sick from the fluoride exposure, on a scientific level.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

What about if you go, do you go on holidays?

 

Marilyn Pollard:

I can’t go on holidays because where in Australia is there no fluoridation? Okay, you can go to a little country town. It might be exciting, but, basically, if I want a decent holiday and have a relaxing time not having to do anything, I have to go overseas. Europe, Scandinavian countries.  I cannot afford that on a pension.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

Why Scandinavia specifically?

 

Marilyn Pollard:

They’ve got no fluoride in their water. They’ve taken it out. They’ve taken it out. Supermarkets are saying they have not sold so much spring water than ever before. Since the fluoride’s gone in, they are making that much money on bottled water. It’s just amazing.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

What a tragedy it is that in this once pure and healthy nation, it is now so difficult to find pure drinking water as nature intended. Trusted sources such as Greenhill Springs still exist but cannot cater to the needs of an entire nation due to limited capacity and supply. What a tragedy that simply turning on the kitchen tap or running the garden hose entails the transference of industrial waste. Pure water is no longer available and free to all. Big Industry holds our purity hostage, more so with each passing day.

 

Marilyn Polalrd:

That’s just what’s happening. It’s part of the bigger picture.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

Do you know much about filters at all?

 

Marilyn Pollard:

I have researched.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

The sort of filters that are needed to take or remove fluoridation?

 

Merilyn Haines:

Well, first of all, boiling doesn’t. Boiling will only concentrate the amount of fluoride in the water. It’s extremely hard to get rid of, out of water. Most filters, carbon filters particularly, what most people use, won’t remove it.

 

Marilyn Pollard:

You’re going to be looking at full-on four, five-stage filters, and to really do a good job of it, you need a commercial filtration system like a reverse osmosis. That’ll take it out, the full big commercial ones, but who’s got ten to twenty grand plus to buy one? Plus, environmentally, it’s a disaster because 50% of the water is wasted and that has got all the heavy metals and the fluoride, all the chemicals that are part of the fluoride mixture they get taken out and it goes back into the ground.

So, you’re polluting your own property with chemicals that are toxic, but I can’t afford a filtration system. As far as I’m concerned, the government should be buying me one, but will they? No, because fluoride doesn’t make you sick, according to them.

 

David McRae:

Yeah, and like you say, so many people either can’t afford it or don’t have the space for a tank. Many people couldn’t afford to buy the amount of bottled water you would need for all of your cooking and even showering. Some people get quite harmed by showering in fluoridated water. Sensitive people get prickly rashes and absorb that water. Bathing in it, you absorb a lot of fluoride from bathing in warm fluoride bath.

No, it’s ridiculous to think that people who need to escape fluoride can go and organize their own water supply. We all pay our water rates for a proper clean water supply, and in fluoridated towns, we’re not getting it.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

So, even if you avoid fluoridated tap water, how do you avoid products that may have been processed with fluoridated water?

 

Diana Buckland:

You can’t avoid it. That’s the simple fact. You can’t avoid it. I’ve had people say, “Oh well, if you don’t want to drink it, get a tank. It’s not that simple. You can reduce a little bit your consumption by drinking either tank water or cask water, but still, unless you’ve got massive amount of money to get a whole house filter on your home, you’re showering in it, you’re washing your babies in it, all your garden’s hosed with it, all your plants your vegetables, all the fruit and food you buy is all manufactured with tap water.

 

Andrew Harms:

I have particular concerns in South Australia, especially in Adelaide, where this fluoridated chemical waste goes, because only 5% of that 700 tons ends up in people’s bodies. The rest is excreted and flushed down our drains. So 95%, at least, of this 700 tons goes to our sewage plants and the big issue is that goes to sea. They’ve managed to sanitize the waste and get away with it, and get it out of the reaches of the EPA.

What I am concerned about is the thousands upon thousands of Liters of this sewage waste that goes through treatment plants and ends up in the Virginia fruit area fruit and vegetable area. If this fluoridated waste containing the arsenic, uranium, beryllium, cadmium and other products, other heavy metals, ends up in being a treated waste water going to produce Adelaide’s vegetables, I have concerns that there may be health implications from that and I am going to in the future investigate that issue.

 

Gillian Blair:

It’s been proven that it’s harmful to fish. In fact, I believe it will stop a salmon run. I mean, you put it into the water supplies. So, then, it gets back into the rivers because the stuff is released into the rivers, and it’s really bad for fish. So, if it’s bad for fish, it’s obviously an environmental toxin, and it’s not supposed to be put into rivers, so they dilute it with our water supplies. It’s a way of laundering a poison.

 

Philip Robertson:

Dr. Spittle has condensed the medical literature that reported on side effects from many doctors, dentists, and scientists doing government work and their own clinical observations. He’s listed around about two dozen different common symptoms of fluoride toxicity, and that’s really important because most doctors and dentists are informed it’s completely safe. This is difficult to focus on is fluoride causing the skin rash? Is fluoride causing the abdominal pain? Is it causing the muscle fatigue?

I think, along with the twenty or so different common symptoms, this is where they normally get treated with anti-inflammatories, cortisone for the skin rash, but doctors and dentists are not generally aware of what side effects to look for. Dr. Spittle’s work is critical for health practitioners who are dealing with the public who may be getting affected by fluoride to become clinically aware of what they should be looking for and Dr. Spittle’s work will also shows the testing procedures of how to avoid the exposure to the fluoride. Then, watch to see a change in symptoms. So clinically, it’s very, very relevant.

 

John Ryan:

There’s people. There’s laborers, and sports people who have many times. The risk the pathology the toxicology comes in at from 0.7 to 2.3 parts per million. So, if you’re taking 0.9 parts per million, if people have 2 or 3 times, there are enormous risks and there are a lot of them.

There are certain teas and wines and soft drinks and juices and raisins potatoes and cheese and grapes, foods, which concentrate this, and have done so in America. So, it’s in the environment so much that they need to have a look at what people are getting. Then, you have the issue of people who can’t excrete it. Then, as well, we said at the end there’s this enormous problem of the hypersensitive people.

There’s a lot written. At the end of the spectrum there are 7% or 8% or 9% or 10% of people, or there’s currently 1% of people allergic to fluoride. So, in this state, there’ll be 42,000 people allergic to fluoride getting no medical help because the doctors and dentists don’t believe in it. Who’s going to tell them? So, if their rash gets better or they’re worse or their migraine gets worse or their gut symptoms get worse, who’s going to tell them? It’s often the more vulnerable and sick people.

It’s not only not what we consider good fluoride.  It also has other toxins like lead, cadmium. There’s a whole list, and it’s been verified by Australian television that this is in our water. Government’s doing this.  They’ve omitted facts. They’ve lied to us and I cannot let my daughter or any other of my children drink this toxic soup that they’re claiming is beneficial for their teeth. Before that, I was blissfully unaware of what fluoride was. It was in the toothpaste and that was all and I believed my government, but after this I have no faith whatsoever in either my government or the people pushing this.

In my point of view, they should have their licenses, their medical licenses taken off them. They’ve lied to us. They sit there with cheesy grins. I believe truly that they know they’re lying to us, and after viewing the facts that fluoride or the fluorosilicic acid, I have to seriously come to the conclusion that this has been put in for totally other reasons, mainly so the industry can get rid of their toxic waste, cheaply, because they can’t dump it anywhere. It costs them millions as I have found out through my own research. I think there’s some backroom deals going on. They’re just filling our water with this crap and filling our children with this crap.

 

Sandy Sanderson:

Here we have a state which says, “You must do this.  You must drink this. You must eat this.  We know it’s good for you,” and, yet, no one checks. No one takes responsibility. So, what’s happening there? You have to take the responsibility yourself for something someone else is doing to you. That’s a crime. You have no choice.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

How does that make you feel, as a parent?

 

Sandy Sanderson:

Oh, terrible because I want to protect my children. I want to give them every opportunity to be healthy and happy and functional in the community. I love them dearly, and it makes me feel really helpless.

 

Jean Ryan:

Well first, it’s the duty of any government to have clean air clean water and basics for health, and I feel that if you’re going to medicate a population, the first thing you would not, should not, do is add anything to the water supply. The water supply should be clean. We put, as far as I can see, we put a little bit of fluoride in the water and that is considered a medication. The dentists often talk about having fluoride much the same way as you’d have a bleach or chlorine in the water. This, of course, is just a nonsense.

What  happens  is  that  you  put  the  fluoride  in  the  water  to  treat  people, whereas you put the chlorine in the water to treat the water. Those are two amazingly different concepts and what you find in the dental health section is they try to muddy the water using those two analogies. I’m really passionate about the fact that babies under 6 months should have absolutely no fluoride. This is a time when the young brain is growing. It’s a time when the blood brain barrier is not yet solid. It’s a time when these babies are at a huge inclination for an insult, and this is why when over recent times, even the Lancet paper have suggested that fluoridated water should be actually considered as a toxic element, and I think there’s a good reason for that.

One in six kids these days have a problem with brain function, have a problem with behavior whether it’s ADHD, whether it’s autism, or whatever it is. Young brains are very, very apt to have a problem with any sort of a chemical, with any sort of an enzyme inhibitor, and fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor, and this is why I’m passionately against putting fluoride in the water.

 

Merilyn Haines:

With mothers, they have been misled because they have been told that it’s quite safe to add fluoridated water to infant formula, and this is completely wrong. The amount of fluoride in fluoridated water, there is a tiny amount of fluoride in breast milk. It’s like .004 parts per million. It’s a minute amount.

The amount of fluoride in fluoridated water is 250 times the amount of that would be in breast milk. So, nature’s actually trying to keep babies away from fluoride, but mothers haven’t been told this. The American Dental Association, in 2006, started warning that if babies were going to be fed with infant formula, reconstituted with tap water, it would be wise to use non-fluoridated tap water. Mothers, the Australian public, have been deliberately misled by fluoridation promoters in Australia.

 

Frank Parsons:

The first thing is that the mother’s breasts appeared to reduce the fluoride levels and she provides milk with them approximately .013 milligrams per Liter of fluoride in it. If you then think about the replacement of that with a formula and you use 1 milligram per Liter fluoridated water from the tap and allow for a little bit of evaporation during the heating of that water in the formula, you’re dosing the baby at a hundred times the natural level.

Now, that bothers me because there seemed to be no problem with the level that was in the female breast before fluoridation and in fact the New Zealand and Australian authorities accepted that the level in the female breast were at .013 milligrams per Liter was suitable and the proper level. When you go to the extremes of putting fluoride in everybody’s water, then there are no exclusions to who gets it and in this case the infants get about a 100 times more than they would if they were being breastfed. The body certainly didn’t evolve to be exposed to those levels so it would be my opinion that it was the wrong thing to do.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

Dr. John Colquhoun, a New Zealand dental researcher, states, “Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child’s body can damage the tooth-forming cells, then other harm is also likely.” Australian authorities dismiss dental fluorosis as “just a cosmetic effect”. Do you believe that this is an irresponsible position to take whilst Australian children are being toxically overexposed to fluoride?

 

Caree Alexander:

Totally irresponsible. Totally irresponsible. Why should they have more fluoride? They’ve already had toxic doses. Who says they need it? Who says it’s not already in their bodies and why aren’t they being tested for fluoride in their bodies? That can be done. You know, and that’s what we’ve been asking for in this community. Test our community first. We may already have fluoride. You’re telling us we need it. How about find out if we already have it. And we’re definitely being exposed to it on a daily basis.

 

John Ryan:

Well, people often ask me how I got involved, and I have to sort of tongue-in-cheek tell them I’ve never been in favor of poisoning people. I get all sorts of reactions from that, but basically when you’re taught to be a doctor you’re taught to at least do no harm. That is at the background, coupled with an evolving interest due to my father’s influence and studying nutrition and getting involved in more natural remedies. That’s got stronger.

However, I have all the orthodox qualifications in general practice, in children’s health and nutrition, but I’ve been the Queensland Chair of the Australian College of Nutrition and Environmental Medicine; and the Australian Integrated Medical Association. As I mentioned before, for six years I was a member of the Complementary Medicine Evaluation Committee of the Therapeutic Good Administration.  So, that’s my background, and I suppose that’s what’s driven me. I suppose touching on what Jeanie just said, it is, I suppose, one thing the TGA experience taught you is to evaluate research

When the National Research Committee in the United States in 2006 has 500 Studies and a thousand references indicating there are difficulties with teeth fluorosis, with skeletal problems, with thyroid function, with brain function, osteogenic sarcoma, and a situation led by dentists who are primarily interested in teeth and not the rest of the body, or public servants who seem to be driven by a political and not a medical agenda, quite happily brush that aside. It’s quite astounding that that has been allowed to get through a system. The benefits of fluoridization are minimal if any and the research supports that as well.

 

Doug Everingham:

I’m Doug Everingham. I was a family doctor in Rockhampton 40 odd years ago, and I wrote to the paper saying what a good thing fluoridation was. Then, I started to find evidence that there was not all good things come out of fluoridation, and I changed my mind and I’ve been studying the subject from that point-of-view ever since.

The profession is waking up to the fallacies of fluoride promotion. It’s rhetoric not science. We need, we need the profession, all profession, all health professionals, teachers and researchers, to look at the things from an objective point of view and not the political and rhetoric point of view. Look for the money trail.

Decades ago, it was the aluminium industry providing most of the fluoride waste. They were the ones that were sponsoring surveys of public health, but they only did it for teeth. They ignored and they failed to investigate other organs of the body, the thyroid gland, the bones, and every other part of the body is affected.

 

Jaya Chela Drolma:

What about effective, the word effective? They say it’s safe and effective. Would you agree that water fluoridation is effective in stopping or reducing tooth decay?

 

Philip Robertson:

I don’t say it is, only on the word of dentists I’ve spoken to, who’ve done proper research, and published research into the effectiveness of it. I haven’t been all that concerned with that aspect because I’ve been focusing on the side effects but with the studies that have been done where there’s been a proper statistical analysis, scientific analysis done on effectiveness. They cannot differentiate any significant difference between the tooth decay rates in unfluoridated cities and fluoridated cities.

 

David McRae:

For example, look at Queensland. That was never fluoridated except for a couple of small towns until 2009. Yet, right through the 1980s, 1990s, and the early 2000s, the tooth decay rates, for all ages, in Queensland, were no different to Victoria and New South Wales that had been fluoridated for twenty and thirty years. So, there is no evidence for benefits. Then, look at Europe.  Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, France, all the countries across Europe that do not fluoridate their water, generally have lower tooth decay rates than these fluoridated states in Victoria.

 

Philip Robertson:

Dr. John Colquhoun, the Chief Dental Health Officer in New Zealand. He found no difference at all in the tooth decay rates between the fluoridated and unfluoridated cities. Dr. Phillip Sutton, Sir Arthur Amies in Australia, published an article pointing out the mistakes in all the studies that had assumed there was a benefit from fluoride.  Various other researchers have done enormous studies where they cannot find any significant difference so it appears to be more claims made about the benefits but, as I say, if there’s any harm confirmed from the treatment then the effectiveness is totally irrelevant. It can’t be given as a treatment if it’s harming patients, forcing them to have the treatment, regardless of its effectiveness.

 

Peter Kavanagh:

I did become rather concerned about fluoride because I think there are reasons to believe that ah it’s not actually efficacious in terms of tooth decay, preventing tooth decay, and that it could be harmful in other respects as well to health. I mean, there are a lot of experts forming this opinion now, and, in Europe, they’re basically taking fluoride out of their water supplies to a large extent.

I think it’s an antiquated technology basically, which could be quite harmful ah and ah I suspect we are probably better off without it. It’s pretty clear that a lot of people are very concerned about it, and you meet individuals who say they’ve been made sick through fluoride. They’re not pretending. I mean there’s medical evidence for it, but there is medical evidence that fluoride does adversely affect some people, at least. Perhaps, they have a particular susceptibility, but there are people who are harmed by fluoride by drinking fluoride.