“Nursery water” with flouride is in violation of the ADA’s (Nov 9) egram alert - Aussies fight back

[Guest guest]

- FreKoss AMALGAM Saturday, December 23, 2006 9:40 PM[AMALGAM] Fwd: [FAN Bulletins] FW: 721: Aussies fight back+++++++++++++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam +++++++++++++++ In a message dated 12/23/2006 11:13:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, paul writes:FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORKhttp://www.FluorideAction.net FAN Bulletin 721: Aussies fight backDec 23, 2006Dear All,Before we get to the stories from Australia. Two quick updates:1) Wal-Mart petition. The online petition to Wal-Mart now stands at 949, just 51 shy of our Dec 31 goal of 1000. If you know of any one or any group that might sign this, or generate more signatories, please send them to http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/walmart/ (if this is not a live URL on your system please copy and paste it in). This online petition is very easy, quick and important. We have to let Wal-Mart know that the product that they have on their shelves “Nursery water” which specifically targets infants with fluoridated water is in violation of the ADA’s (Nov 9) egram alert recommending that fluoridated water not be used to make up formula for infants.2. FAN’s fundraiser. We are edging close to the $2000 mark in our effort to raise $10,000 by December 31 to help support FAN’s important work in 2007. Help us finish the job. Giving a tax-deductible donation to FAN has never been easier with our secure, online donation system at: https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=5061. Donations can also be sent by mail to: AEHSP-FAN, PO Box 5111, Burlington VT 05402. Now, to Australia. Usually when you see a title like “Aussies fight back” it means that the Australian cricket team has achieved a remarkable comeback in a cricket match. However, in the current cricket series between England and Australia, the Australians have needed no “fight backs” since they have convincingly thrashed the Brits in three successive matches to reclaim the coveted “ashes”. For those outside Australia and England I should say that the cricket matches between England and Australia are some of the most intensely fought games in the sport. The “ashes” are from the “wickets” used in the first game between the two countries, which were ceremoniously burned after the first game played in the nineteenth century.In this context, I am talking about the fight back against fluoridation by citizens in three Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland) each of which is using, if not draconian state powers (Victoria), slight of hand (New South Wales) and the public purse (Queensland) to force, persuade or cajole the remaining unfluoridated communities to feed from the poisonous government trough.Queensland. For those short of time this Holiday season, please go straight to the excellent December 20 letter from Dr. John Ryan (below) to the Queensland paper the Courier-Mail, plus the online comments following his editorial. John’s letter was written in response to an editorial from Dr. Robert McCray (not to be confused with David McRae an indefatigable fluoridation fighter from Geelong, Victoria) who is the Queensland president of the Australian Dental Association. McCray wrote:“I have observed the names of those who write the "anti" letters. They include one doctor, one nutritionist (who is married to the doctor) and about 20 other individuals from Mackay south to Warwick.That strident few are backed by a small network of seemingly well-credentialled (sic) opponents – many of them non-medical – who utilise the internet and email to do an effective snow job with their minority view...The decision about water fluoridation is one for the executive level of government. Beattie (the Premier of Queensland, PC) should arrange things so he can ask his chief health officer for a recommendation and act on that.A referendum is unsuitable because the people do not have the technical knowledge to separate claim and counter-claim, and when in doubt are likely to vote to maintain the status quo...The minority objectors can use reverse osmosis filters to remove it, or use bottled water if they feel so strongly about it.”New South Wales. The second bit of good news in the “Aussies fight back” comes from Gosford, NSW. Tony DeSilva informed us that the Gosford Council finally voted on Dec 12 to allow the citizens to have a referendum on fluoridation. The Mayor had defeated two previous attempts by council (Nov 7 and 28) to do this with his casting vote. This victory - the third time around - may have been influenced by the fact that Edward James had revealed to the councilors and the public at the meeting (Dec 12) that the local paper had already printed its report that the referendum bid would be rejected, before the meeting and vote had taken place! Edward James actually produced an advance copy of the Dec 13 issue of the Express Advocate that contained the pre-emptive heading, "Referendum on fluoride to be rejected"! Tony De Silva writes:You will have heard by now the great result from the Council meeting. The result on the night could not have been better!A very clever amendment moved by Councillor Doyle gave the motion of having a poll some extra teeth. It amounts to wording this poll in such a way that if the water is fluoridated in the meantime, then the wording of the poll will be to take out the fluoride. Gratitude goes to the 5 councillors who could see through the shameful tactics of NSW Health. And also to the councillors who succumbed to the embarrassment of being associated with undemocratic tactics and in doing so restored some dignity and credibility.The draft plan for the whole issue of water, which is now open to public discussion, did not include any reference to fluoridation. Michael Linnell spoke briefly suggesting that public discussion on water should include its proposed fluoridation to which the mayor agreed. Good on you Michael!The mayor was still smarting about our reference to the denial of democratic rights; he referred to that several times during the evening; so that tactic certainly worked. He will have that tucked away in the back of his mind and will, I believe, be more cautious in future.However, to his credit he charred that meeting very well!Edward James did our cause a great service by bringing in a copy of next day's Advocate with heading "Council to reject referendum on fluoridation", that was passed on to councillor Doyle, making the outcome more certain.This was a victory for a just and noble cause using good tactics that were formulated by consensus, arrived at times by straight talking, at times by even harsh words, at times by moderating and cautious influences. The time we had was short, the situation was frustrating and we were all under great stress.I am thankful that we were able to blend our various talents to help produce an outcome that I feel sure could not have been achieved by any one of us going it alone.Feel better now, I shall sleep with a smile on my face,Good night all, this is better than Christmas!!!The third piece of good news also comes from NSW. Cr Lisa Intemann writes:"We have secured a small step forward here with NSW Liberal-National coalition adopting a position on fluoridation as follows. The position of the Liberal/Nationals Coalition is that fluoridation of water supplies is a matter for local government in consultation with their ratepayers, and that they should not be forced or induced by State Government to fluoridate. Andrew Stoner has been with us all the way since we raised the matter with him in late 2004. Now it looks like he has convinced the others to take a position. Andrew also advises that we "must be having an effect" because the fluoride talk has all but stopped amongst NSW parliamentarians. This is no great win ... but a small step...”Yet another piece of good news from NSW. Pat Wheeldon reports that: "On 12/12/06, Kempsey Shire Council (New South Wales, Australia) moved and carried the following Motion: That Kempsey Shire Council inform the Parliamentary Secretary for Health that this shire request reversal of the Gazettal to fluoridate due to the increased cost to be imposed on the community of $110,000 per annum at current costs.At least six of the nine councillors were in favour of this Motion - not only because of costing, as Mayor Betty Green stated on ABC Radio on Thursday, Dec. 14, in an interview with Terry Sara ... she noted concerns about adverse health effects being reported from across the world, on top of the cost factor (quoted as $20,000 per annum by NSW Health in 2004, now we are seeing $110,000 figure in 2006). She also stated the type of fluoride was unacceptable ... ie industrial waste. Mayor Green stated that there was no reason this (fluoride) could not be gained through toothpaste or tablets.”Some more good news (I hope) for all three states (and more?). I have just finalized my ticket for another visit to Australia for next October. I am tacking it on to my attendance at the ISFR conference in Beijing, China October 9-12, 2007. Hopefully this time someone from one of the state health agencies or dental associations will have the courage to debate me on this issue in public. How about it Dr. McCray, or will you run for cover – until I have left the country - like your predecessors?Paul Connett.....................................................................................................................................................................................1) Robert McCray’s editorial in the Courier Mail, December 14, 2006http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20928841-27197,00.html <http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20928841-27197,00.html> No political will on fluorideRobert McCrayTHERE are 2000 Queensland children (aged less than six) each year with teeth so rotten they need a general anaesthetic to repair them.In Logan right now, there are 650 children on waiting lists to have an average of 8.5 teeth extracted or filled. A similar number are waiting in Brisbane's north. Most of those children are from poorer areas.While advocating action on fluoride over the past year, I've been appalled by the failure of elected leaders to provide leadership on water fluoridation.I have observed the names of those who write the "anti" letters. They include one doctor, one nutritionist (who is married to the doctor) and about 20 other individuals from Mackay south to Warwick.That strident few are backed by a small network of seemingly well-credentialled (sic) opponents – many of them non-medical – who utilise the internet and email to do an effective snow job with their minority view.They inhibit elected leaders in this state from adopting a public health recommendation endorsed by all Australian medical groups and the World Health Organisation. Local branches of the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Dental Association, the Public Health Association and the Pharmaceutical Society formed the Queensland Oral Health Alliance to push for it.On the "pro" side, there are not just individuals, there are organisations comprised of thousands of medical professionals – but do you think the Premier would show leadership on water fluoridation? He hasn't so far, even though health reformer Peter Forster said Queensland must recognise the high cost and consequences of the state's failure to fluoridate.Public health is a state government responsibility – Premier Peter Beattie just ducked it again last year by supporting water fluoridation only to the point of offering to pay councils' infrastructure costs to introduce it. No council has. Isn't it the state leader's job to consider the greater good and act on it? The Premier doesn't seem to appreciate he has an oral health crisis looming.Public sector dentistry is about to implode. There are chronic staff shortages and escalating demand from all those Queensland "children" who missed out on water fluoridation over the years. And with more of the elderly retaining their own teeth, there is burgeoning demand in that category too.Dentists support water fluoridation for altruistic reasons – it is in everyone's best interest to have a public health benefit that has been on tap for the past 30 to 50 years for 15 million Australians living anywhere but Queensland.The decision about water fluoridation is one for the executive level of government. Beattie should arrange things so he can ask his chief health officer for a recommendation and act on that.A referendum is unsuitable because the people do not have the technical knowledge to separate claim and counter-claim, and when in doubt are likely to vote to maintain the status quo.Fluoridation has a known public health benefit but dentists do not claim it is a silver bullet for preventing decay – it simply gives a better chance to all those less able to look after themselves fully.A recent Australian Council of Social Service report on access to dental services echoed the National Oral Health Plan 2004-2011 (gathering dust on Queensland Government shelves), which asks for water fluoridation for all communities of more than 1000 people.A Queensland cost-benefit study indicates potential savings of $1 billion over 30 years.The minority objectors can use reverse osmosis filters to remove it, or use bottled water if they feel so strongly about it.The State Government should mandate what is in the public benefit, rather than continue to allow anti-fluoridationists to impose their minority view. Show leadership for goodness sake.Dr Robert McCray is Queensland president of the Australian Dental Associationwww.fluoridationqld.com <http://www.fluoridationqld.com/> Caption under photo: ROTTEN . . . 'Public sector dentistry is about to implode' says Dr Robert McCray---------------------2) Response to McCray from Dr. John Ryan, Courier Mail, December 20, 2006Cavities in the fluoride pushDecember 19, 2006 11:00pm (first appeared online)The public are not getting the facts about fluoride, writes John RyanTHOSE advocating the addition of fluoride to Queensland's public water supply prefer to denigrate opponents than engage in substantive debate.For instance, the Australian Dental Association's Robert McCray dismisses opponents' arguments and says people who don't want fluoride can take it out of the water themselves – at significant expense.This is a medical treatment which defies every rule of drug management – administrated compulsorily every day, for a lifetime, regardless of age and medical circumstances (and with little prior education or choice for the community).McCray seeks to relegate those opposed to his views as "nutters", including me – a medical practitioner vitally interested in early intervention medicine and spokesman for more than 3000 Australian doctors, dentists, scientists and other health practitioners – and my wife, a medical professional and dedicated researcher in this subject. Presumably it also includes a third of Brisbane's population; in a community forum in 2005, Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said he would not support water fluoridation because a third of residents rejected mass medication.It must also include 14 Nobel Prize winners who oppose water fluoridation on scientific grounds, including Arvid Carlsson who led the successful campaign against fluoridation in Sweden, and who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2000.Is McCray's patronising argument also directed against the 12 North American scientific experts on fluoride who met regularly over three years (National Research Council USA 2006)? They concluded that communities with water fluoridation had increased rates of:• Hip fractures – fluoride can make bones more brittle and cause joint stiffness and pain.• Lowered IQ in children, even at low dose.• Decreased thyroid function.• Bone cancer – positive in animal studies and later to be seen positive in young boys by a 2006 study.• Dental fluorosis – staining and pitting of tooth enamel.We suggest the ADA is being negligent in not following the world's largest group of dentists, the American Dental Association, in stating clearly on its website the warning that fluoridated water should not be used for formula-fed babies.This website should acknowledge also the research that at least 1 per cent of the population will suffer from allergic reactions from fluoride in water (that's 40,000 in this state – a lot of Queenslanders).Might it also include the Centre for Disease Control's acknowledgments in 1999 and 2002 that where fluoride is effective, it is in the topical (local) application to teeth?And is it unreasonable to expect the "all the facts" website be up to date and report the recent publication by the prestigious Lancet, of human neurotoxicity caused by fluoride in water – in similar concentrations now recommended by the dentists for Queensland's drinking water?For obvious reasons, then, the following situation exists:• Only nine countries in the world have fluoridation of more than 50 per cent of their public water supplies. Thus Queensland is presently "in step" with most of the world.• Less than 2 per cent of Continental Europe's drinking water is fluoridated. Europe has abandoned the discredited practice over the past 30 years and with no loss to dental health.• Japan, China, Scotland and Northern Ireland have rejected fluoridation. Israel has ceased expansion due to recent research exposing negative health effects.Finally, less than 1 per cent of water used is actually drunk.Most water is for other household use including sewage, and for use by industry etc.Could a less efficient, more wasteful system of medication distribution ever be devised?There are also significant issues concerning the damage to our ecology by the subsequent disposal of this known poison. Surely all Queenslanders are entitled to examine this information before they are compulsorily medicated for a lifetime.Big business and government are funding the dentists in their harmful crusade and Queensland Health has declared already it is not interested in presenting both sides.A case in point is the impending Warwick fluoride poll which has huge resources and funding for the "Yes" case, and absolutely no funding for the "No" case.Of course, we are unable to match their resources, so we encourage Queenslanders to Google "fluoride" for their own education.Dr John Ryan is the chairman of the group Professionals Against Water Fluoridation---3. Readers Online commentsA) From Lexine Prendeville of CairnsIsn't is scary though that, despite compelling evidence, and clearly argued perspectives of people like Dr Ryan and others to whom he referred, flouridation of water is likely to be imposed just because someone in power will force it. The 'advancement' of science and technology which empowers politicians to play God is rapidly causing concerned citizens (like myself) to revert to the more primitive practices of bygone days. Flouridation of Queensland's water supply will be another example of man's evolving 'ingenuity' doing untold harm to society. Let's pray for commonsense to prevail and for good health to triumph. And let's get out of our places of comfort and support those who speak and act for the free choice to take responsibility for our own health. Be strong in saying "thanks but no thanks, we don't want your enforced concern for our wellbeing." B) From Jeanette Beauchamp of Belmont Robert McCray fails to remember that once artificial fluoride is in our water supply we will be subjected to this everyday of our lives. Every time we eat a vegetable grown in fluoridated water and some vegetables uptake fluoride more than other. Every time we eat a piece of meat the animal will have consumed the fluoridated water. Every time I drink a cup of coffee out of my own home I will consume more fluoride. What of the workers outside in our hot climate does the ADA have a set limit of water we should drink so as not to overdose on it. If the ADA are so concerned teach parents how to feed their children as the obesity epidemic and dental decay go hand in hand. Artificial fluoridation doses every man, woman, child, plant and animal with an uncontrolled dose.C) From Dr Mark Diesendorf of University of NSW Congratulations to the Courier Mail for publishing Dr John Ryan's excellent article critiquing fluoridation. My research and that of others confirms that fluoridation is ineffective in reducing decay in permanent teeth, is harmful in the long term and, as medication with an uncontrolled dose, is a violation of medical ethics. Of particular concern, is the likelihood that many people who have high intakes of fluoridated water over long periods of time are developing the bone disease skeletal fluorosis. In its early forms, skeletal fluorosis is manifest as arthritis, a set of diseases that is increasing in prevalence in Australia. There has never been a scientific study of skeletal fluorosis in Australia. However, the disease is common in naturally fluoridated regions of the world. In public statements, the proponents of fluoridation tend to rely upon misrepresentation of the scientific and ethical issues and on personal attacks on opponents. They appear to be incapable of honest scientific debate.D) From David Jones of Gold CoastA very big congratulation on speaking out about water fluoridation. Thank you for letting the public know the TRUTHE) From Michael Linnell Every word and more in Dr Ryan’s statement can be substantiated and expanded upon beyond doubt, which is in marked contrast to the tactics of deception, denigration, and misinformation that is employed by the promoters of this toxic chemical waste, who are made up of a consortium of big business, federal, local and community government, that funds and feeds self interested dentists. This fraud has now gone for over fifty years in the face of an ever increasing and overburdening volume of evidence - and growing almost daily - that the mass ingestion of toxic fluoride waste is not beneficial to dental health and in fact has been proven to be associated with a great number of health problems, which has been ignored by dental and medical organizations and public health officials throughout Australia. Fluoride is a potent toxin. What right does any body have to force such a potentially toxic substance into our drinking water as a medical treatment for all citizens? This evil consortium maintains influence within the press, which makes it difficult to get information published in the media that challenges or refutes the fluoride promoters spin. The Courier Mail should be congratulated for it’s decision to publish Dr Ryan’s article, thereby helping to protect the integrity of this debate. Why is it that the very agencies elected by our communities, instead of becoming fully and factually informed on fluoride, allow themselves to be hijacked by the promoters of this toxic waste, and then become complicit in an endeavor to impose this fraud on their constituents. To eliminate this fraud and to restore our democratic process, we need exercise our democratic right by not voting for any person at any political level who will not undertake that mass medication of fluoride will be not be permitted in any Australian community. While this would not deny anybody who felt it necessary to take fluoride the right to do so, it does however, protect the rights and freedom of choice, of the vast majority of Australians, who do not wish to be mass and unscientifically medicated with this toxic waste. Why are the fluoride promoters so against community referendums. Why do our local authorities not provide equal funding for the pro and the anti publicity? Why are they so against this democratic process? What is it that they don’t want us to know? Why have the majority of international communities stopped or eliminated public water fluoridation? What do they know that our officials are hiding from us? Remember how thalidomide was covered up by these same public health officials and supposedly reputable doctors? Or is fluoride another “asbestos” or “tobacco” in the making? Like Dr Ryan, I urge all Australians to Google “fluoride” for their own education. Sites like <www.purewater.org> have lots of reputable information and links to numerous sites containing scientific and professional research and data on fluoride. I also found McCray’s flawed article offensive, and I thank Dr Ryan for his response and the Courier mail for publishing it.F. From Olive Russell of Ipswich I, like Dr John Ryan , (CM Dec 20) am one of the third of Queenslanders who have not been conned by the fluoride lobby. I hope that others will, like me, " google" fluoride and learn some things about fluoride that the Dental Association would prefer the public didn't know. If more people did some research for themselves they too would be opposed to water fluoridation. Here’s hoping Queensland does remain the smart state and does not forcibly mass medicate it's population with an industrial waste product. .....O.L RussellG From Jennifer McCarthy of Ashmore Dr John Ryan's stand against water fluoridation, Perspectives 20 Dec , is admirable , it is just a pity more doctors and dentists were not brave enough to speak out publicly against this outdated practice which incredibly, persists from the middle of the last century.It didn't work then and it doesn't work now, and like asbestos, the associated health risks are finally coming out into the open. The American Dental Association finally admitting just a month ago that infants under one year of age should not consume fluoridated water could be the beginning of the end of this ridiculous practice. My family will never be convinced that the government putting poison in our water would be good for our health---------------------- Archives MedicalConspiracies - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES!MedicalConspiraciesSubscribe: MedicalConspiracies- - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! Subscribe:......... - New Sister Group: MedicalConspiracies (One Word)Google groups:http://groups.google.comMedicalConspiraciesPost message: MedicalConspiracies (AT) googl (DOT) comSubscribe: MedicalConspiracies- (AT) googl (DOT) comAny information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml