Michael Foley Fluoride Fan Club +

” Dr Michael Foley again went quiet when the
issue of  daily fluoride dosage came up.”

Margaret Strelow Rocky. Mayor” Dr Foley would do well to do a little research and read comments made by councillors themselves before he makes public statements about the reason why councillors – after considering both sides of the argument – voted against fluoride in the water,” Cr Strelow said.

“His ill-informed reactionary comments are an example of the type of behaviour which has contributed to this issue being such an emotive one within the broader community. I would have expected better from a man in his position.”

blue line

Pro-fluoridationist Dr. Foley is blinded by a diabolical ideology, which does not allow him to draw rational conclusions. (Recent debate Mackay – (Sept. 2016)
His ideology is hostile to science, logic and history. His recent claim that fluoride does no harm to the thyroid gland is a typical response when he is out of his depth in fluoridated water. - See below:

Iodine is a halogen.
The halogens are a series of non-metal elemants:

          Fluorine, F
          Chlorine, Cl
          Bromine, Br
          Iodine, I 
          Astatine, At

The problem is that fluoride is a ‘bully’. Any time an atom of fluoride
and an atom of any other halogen are in the same vicinity, the
fluoride will displace the other halogen and take its place.
      – Dr. Terry Tennant, MD, MD(H), PSc.,D

This is universal, probably throughout time and most likely
throughout
 the cosmos. We realise that dentists will see
this as yet another
 threat to their constant claims of
fluoridation’s safety, but
 to claim otherwise
is to fly in the face of true science.

See the → Periodic Table of the Elements

blue line

Sorry Mr. Foley, fluorides do cause delayed
eruption of teeth 
in animals and humans.

See extract below – from page 129. If  you do not know this basic,
we think you should consider dropping your title of doctor.

extract sheep delayed eruptionMichael Foley claims on delayed eruption are NOT valid -

See also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

Delayed Eruption France 1999

dental phenomena Queensland Government Research on Sheep reports the opposite:
Go to page 129 – Delayed eruption book (A) below 

  Fluorosis Merino Sheep Queensland (a) (A)

→ Fluorosis Merino Sheep Queensland (B) (B)

→  Fluorosis Merino Sheep Queensland (c) (C)

Other animals not happy about Fluoride → HERE

blue line
Fluoride and Hypothyroidism

blue line

Most of the so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ talk comes from the pro-fluoridation
lobby, 
not anti
- fluoridation campaigners concerned with presenting
the ethical and 
scientific case against fluoridation.

Foley image Gladstone Observer

 Fluorocarbon gases are generally greenhouse gases with
global-warming 
potentials 100 to 20,000 times
that of carbon dioxide. 
Organo-fluorine
compounds persist in the 
environment
due to the strength of the
carbon–fluorine bond.
Fluorine has NO known metabolic role in mammals in fact 
a few plants synthesize organofluorine poisons that deter herbivores.

M. Foley Sept. 2016

Dear Michael, it may time to reread The Code of Ethics of
The International Association for Dental Research (IADR)
of which you are a member!

 Anti-Fluoride Groups were called “lunatic, conspiracy, fringe’
by Michael Foley – Brisbane Courier Mail – 2 October. 2016.

Many Queensland Shires, voters, whole nations, scientist, including
Nobel Prize Winners  may not be impressed by these angry comments.

blue line

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser”.
 Socrates

double-blue-lineud

nhmrc-2016-f-logo

  BIASES – EXAMPLES IN THE 2016 NHMRC DRAFT REPORT  

      ”There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
             - Mark Twain -

double-blue-lineud

image 612 ABC

   Comments: → Download audio

 You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

 Merilyn Haines is absolutely correct when she says that most Australian doctors know very little about the adverse health effects of fluoride. I have skeletal fluorosis, and am fluoride sensitive, with many symptoms. For years I tried to find a doctor who could help me, but they couldn’t help. Eventually I figured out for myself that the problem was fluoride, mainly from fluoridated water. By that stage I had such severe joint problems that I could barely do the most basic things required to look after myself, and I am not old. Eight years later, most of my symptoms have disappeared or greatly improved, but even though there has been great improvement with my joints my activity is still severely restricted. Skeletal fluorosis can be permanent if it progresses too far. Michael Foley is a shameless hypocrite and liar, who should be in jail. If he wants to see poor quality research, he need only look at that which he and his fellow fluoridationists rely on. If anyone wants more information, they could start with the Fluoride Action Network website, Declan Waugh’s work, the journal Fluoride, and the 2006 US National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water. There are also some good Australian websites.

 Posted by: Joe Bloggs | 12 March 2013 at 02:54 AM

 If in doubt leave it out! Good on you Merylin Hines, I’m with you 100%. I was always made to believe that cavaties where caused by sugary foods? Let’s ban companys like Coca cola from destroying our communities teeth? But typical of todays model of medicine we deny food and nutrition and run around looking for the next magical elixer to market and sell. I don’t want chemicals added to my water thankyou, yet I am denied this simple human right as long as I live in a flurodated region.

 Posted by: Matthew 12 March 2013 at 09:41 AM

 The Australian Constitution is there to limit the powers the re-representatives (not nannies) excise over we the people. We’ve never at Referendum approved of this industrial waste mass medication. I’m a big boy now and my children know how to use a tooth brush. Take that waste product out of the municipal drinking water until such a time as we the people in the majority ask for it via Referendum.

 Posted by: Rodney Stevens | 12 March 2013 at 10:41 AM

 Dr Michael Foley again went quiet when the issue of daily fluoride dosage came up. Thing is, the whole topic should be mute as Dr Michael Foley is not my doctor. ABC, when did it become legal for governments and dentists to force dosages on Australians? Permission has never been given thus why the medical indemnity protection is in place to protect those like Dr Michael Foley. Why do they need protection from something they say is safe? Doctors used to indorse smoking as well. Dr Michael Foley, you are not my doctor. Dr Michael Foley, you are not my nanny. 95% of world agree with me.

 Posted by: Rodney Stevens | 12 March 2013 at 11:51 AM

 I don’t want fluoride in my water – that should be enough!

 Why should I have it when I don’t want it and don’t need it – or is Queensland Health the new unelected dictatorship of Queensland?

 Posted by: Colin Bishop | 12 March 2013 at 12:02 PM

 No I do not want fluoride in the water…natural water full of healthy minerals, flows constantly beneathe the ground, for us all to drink.

However, if we keep polluting the natural water, via coal seam gas and chemicals, then heaven help us….but then again, maybe it is already helping us, with all the floods that Queensland has recently experienced….maybe these floods are flushing out these toxic chemicals from our water supplies. I guess we humans had better get over and on with the fact, that nature overides nurture, every time, regards.

 Posted by: Rev. Michelle De La Rente | 12 March 2013 at 12:07 PM

 Well Foley should have asked to provide the study done by the NHMRC and TGA CDC and the FDA ….NONE done and their push to fluoridate is flawed. The enviromental problems :

As for litigation one needs to look back at Germany and damage done 100 rears ago.
Approximately 17 million Litres of poison water is released into the environment annually.
This run off also effects the Great Barrier Reef via rivers.

 *Economically wasteful..

100% water is fluoridated ..
40% lost in leaks before you get it.
40% into the environment where it is not supposed to go
of the 60% left 7/8 used by industry and farmers
the 1/8 left that comes in to your house you drink less than 1% of it.
You water the lawn, flush the toilet, take baths you do all sorts of things
with but you are not drinking it..

Your drinking less than 1% of the 1% and if you look at the number of
children with a so called tooth problems it is about 3% of the population.
We now have 3% of population drinking of the 3% of 1% of 1/8 of 60%
of all the water you bothered to fluoridate, so is this the way to
deliver an illegal medication to those who don’t drink the water supply
in the first place ???.

 Posted by: | 12 March 2013 at 01:22 PM

 It’s pretty rich of Merilyn Haines to say that calling fluoride natural is “misleading”.
I can count a number of times she can be considered misleading;

 - “industrial waste”: table salt is always table salt no matter if it’s from a salt lake or urea.

– “600 mg of lead”: that is 0.6% of the fluoride mix. When diluted down to 1 part per million, this lead is 6 parts per billion!- pointing to these trace chemicals is in itself misleading, when the argument is about fluoride.
– She focuses on the results of adult tooth decay in children (teeth without much time to have developed tooth decay) as opposed to baby teeth.- She misrepresents the 2007 NSW Dental Health Survey, which concluded far less fluorosis and a noted difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions.
– She doesn’t name the study, but previously when she talks about osteosarcoma, she has been referring to Bassin et al (2006). The researchers behind this study couldn’t replicate the appearance of osteosarcoma and stressed caution in drawing the relationship.

 Dr Foley did a great job, but it made no difference to her position regardless how often he corrected her.

 I’ve been following this fluoridation matter for a few months now and I am amazing by how they interact with the science. For instance the 2007 NSW survey or the Bassin paper; neither support their position and yet, even when this is brought to their attention, they continue to use them as though the papers do.

 Posted by: Moth | 12 March 2013 at 03:45 PM

 Wow this is a great debate from ABC regarding Fluoride in drinking water. It provides views from both sides of the argument and clearly highlights the major difference, one side is based on ideology, the other on research and facts.

 If you have any doubts or questions regarding the Fluoride debate, take the time and listen.

 It is really worth it.

 Posted by: kate | 12 March 2013 at 04:37 PM

 Marilyn Haines, made very valid points. Take fluoride out of the water supply. The best way is to prevent tooth decay is to apply it directly to the teeth. Michael Foley tried to discredit her but what he did not say that no amount of water will save baby teeth from the affect of dinking sugar laden juice etc. and being too young to clean their teeth before they go to sleep.

 Posted by: V McVety | 13 March 2013 at 11:42 AM

 Fluorosis is caused by an intake of too much fluoride over a period of time, from a various of sources including tap water. Duhh?? Great debate Merilyn Haines… Too bad I couldn’t listen to it all, it was cut and inaccessible just after you mentioned your sister.. Shame.

 Posted by: Britz | 13 March 2013 at 12:25 PM

 Dr Michael Foley is just another classic example of why we, as a Nation, are in such a poor state of Health ..

Shame on you Dr Foley .. Your ignorance is “bliss”

 Posted by: Glenn Williams | 14 March 2013 at 07:48 AM

  What a great debate.

 Foley is yet another blind, myopic, ignorant and myopic ego bound “professional” who as a dentist would use DISTILLED WATER to clean his dental equipment (search [ autoclave ].

In hearing this recording, now many times, I personally can see at least 20 mistakes that Foley makes. He would not debate me as he would lose.
I would really like to see a record of where Dr. Foley has received his income over time, if or not he has accepted directly or indirectly any payments, inducements or ‘favors’ in any form from any associated with the HUGE fluoride proponents.
This is simple:
Do not fluoridate drinking water – let people decide. This arrogance of nanny state forced medication is a simple debate.

     Posted by: Phillip | 30 December 2013 at 12:01 PM

blue line

Fluorides, Zinc and Anorexia Nevosa

Fluorosis in India

This-Book-F-bad-for-us-f-300x222

logo-aust-f-skeptics

 

Vit.c strip

New-Splash

FLUORIDATION – LEGAL WINS AND ARGUMENTS

“Like all nostrums, fluoridation will soon pass away.
In 50 years from now it will be known as
the greatest hoax in medical history.”
Judge R.C. Tarter. 

Justice l                                 Justice r

21 April 2017  - Legal Chalenge – Fluoridation Israel

FLUORIDATION-LEGAL-WINS-AND-AGU...Recent-law-courts

See-below

RubyShillerChanHasan-F.-legal.

Black Lines separate

Mosaic logo  copy

MOSAIC FERTILIZER FINED TWO BILLION DOLLARS

The contaminates in the fluoridation products sold by Mosaic,
are the same as used by the Queensland Government !

Black Lines separate

MEMORANDUM TO:

Liesa Cianchino, Chair of Concerned Residents of Peel to End Fluoridation

FROM: Nader R. Hasan – DATE: June 23, 2014

You have asked me to provide an opinion on the lawfulness of the Region of Peel’s fluoridation program. In short, if an Ontario resident can properly present the existing scientific and medical evidence to an Ontario court, then there is a reasonable possibility that an Ontario court would declare the Fluoridation Act and municipal fluoridation programs in Ontario to be unconstitutional and thus invalid. 

Black Lines separate

Judge-ff

CITY SUED OVER FLUORIDATION

Black Lines separate

TGA, The Drug Industry And Us

FLUORIDATION CODEX, WHO, AND WTO

TGA / CODEX / HEALTHY FOOD FOR AUSTRALIA?

Black Lines separate

Human Rights, Civil Liberties, and Water Fluoridation.

      Credit to:

Douglas Cross, BSc,CBiol,EurProBiol,FSB 

Black Lines separate

Matthews-Associates-Lawers

 UTAH QUESTIONS FLUORIDATION 

Utah questions toxic fluoridation. The state has just come to realize that it is getting many extra toxins – tramp contaminants – at no extra charge, along with its monthly medicinal poisonings from fluoride. Utah is becoming the first state to question the criminally stupid absurdity of paying chemical companies to dump toxic waste into its drinking water. 

Black Lines separate

PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW

Volume 14, Number 2 Summer 1997

Copyright © 1997 by Pace University School of Law All rights reserved
reprinted here with permission
Fluoridation of Public Water Systems:
Valid Exercise of State Police Power or Constitutional Violation?

Black Lines separateNuremberg-code

R.H.Jackson

Nureberg War Crime Trials

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.→  HERE  ← and   HERE  

Black Lines separate

The Protocol For The Prohibition Of  The Use In War
Of Asphyxiating Poisonous Or Other Gases, And
Of Bacteriological Methods Of Warfare.
Was Signed at Geneva: 17 June 1925

Black Lines separate

FLUORIDE – THE NEXT ASBESTOS

Black Lines separate

↓ The Longest Court Case in Scottish History 

” NO FLUORIDE — ‘SCOTLAND THE BRAVE “

Black Lines separate

rita-Bernett-Rose-+-School-heading

Rita's extract

Links to Rita’s sites →   HERE

“Safe and effective”  (Same as Vioxx)

Black Lines separate

Tampering with Public Water SystemsFull text  →  HERE

Black Lines separate
notice-of-complaint-F.

We all have something to loose F.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO OWNS YOU,
FIND OUT WHO YOU CAN’T CRITICISE – VOLTAIRE

Razor wire devider

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

 BIASES – EXAMPLES IN THE 2016 NHMRC DRAFT REPORT

logo-aust-f-skeptics

new splash

 

 

NO FLUORIDE – ‘SCOTLAND THE BRAVE’

“Sir Richard Doll was paid by chemical companies.
He denied the (proven) carcinogenic effects of Agent Orange.
Though some people may have been shocked, I was not surprised at all
Doll was one of the fervent promoters of fluoridation”.

Scotland-the-brave-Mrs.-Mc.Coll-L-300x245

Mrs-C.-Mcoll

Public health officials argued that putting fluoride in would bring huge reductions in the appalling tooth decay among a sweet-toothed nation. Catherine McColl, a Glasgow pensioner disagreed. She secured legal aid to fight Strathclyde Region and the case lasted three years. The epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll later described his time as an expert witness as the worst two weeks of his life. The issue remains controversial to this day.

Source: Lord Jauncey. Opinion of Lord Jauncey in causa Mrs Catherine McColl (A.P) against Strathclyde Regional Council. The Court of Session, Edinburgh, 1983.

“If fluoride is a medicine, evidence on its effects should be subject to the standards of proof expected of drugs, including evidence from randomised trials.” 

“There have been no randomised trials of water fluoridation.”

R.Doll

 Sir Richard Doll

Extract from Wikipedia:

After his death, controversy arose over some of his work because his papers, held at the Wellcome Library, showed that for many years he had received consultancy payments from chemical companies whose products he was to defend in court. These include US $1,500 per day consultancy fee from Monsanto Company for a relationship which began in 1976 and continued until 2002. He also received fees from the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Dow Chemicals, and ICI. Some donations, including a £50,000 gift from asbestos company Turner and Newall, were given in public ceremony to Green College Oxford where his wife was Warden [citation needed], but most fees and payments remained undisclosed to the public, Oxford University and colleagues until his death. His defenders point out that his connections to industry were widely known by those in the field, that he did his work before formal disclosure of commercial interests became commonplace and that on occasion, he came to conclusions that were unpalatable to the companies who consulted him. His own view, as reported by Richard Peto, was that it was necessary to co-operate with companies for access to data which could prove their products to be dangerous.

PRO-FLUORIDE FRAUD

Extract from Nexus Magazine – May 2007

In Global News last issue [vol. 14, no. 21] you published the fact that Sir Richard Doll was paid by chemical companies. He denied the (proven) carcinogenic effects of Agent Orange. Though some people may have been shocked, I was not surprised at all. Doll was one of the fervent promoters of fluoridation. When Dean Burk and John Yiamouyiannis (I allude to them from here as B&Y) in 1975 published their findings about the 10 per cent extra death rate from cancer in fluoridated cities, the whole fluoridation lobby hastened to disclaim their findings. Of course, Doll was among them. Here is part of what happened.

In order to refute B&Y’s findings, the group claimed that B&Y had not corrected their figures for age, race and sex and that, when these corrections were made, the increase in the cancer death rate disappeared. (I follow closely Yiamouyiannis’ book - Fluoride: The Aging Factor.) During the fall of 1977, two congressional hearings were held. The Hoover group opposed B&Y.

It was then discovered that Dr Hoover and other National Cancer Institute
officials had purposely withheld information from B&Y and,
moreover, clandestinely sent erroneous data to Dr Leo Kinlen
and Sir Richard Doll, professors at Oxford University,
who published the erroneous data as if they were their own.
Thus the illusion was wilfully created that independent research
by two eminent professors had confirmed the data of the
Hoover group, which was completely untrue.
Precise calculation later confirmed the findings of B&Y,
estimating in excess of 10,000 extra cancer deaths a year in the
USA caused by fluoridation.

My dear deceased friends Dean Burk and John Yiamouyiannis would
    have been pleased with your publication about Richard Doll.
        
Sincerely Yours
           Hans C. M., Haarlem, The Netherlands

Fluoride: Lies, Brown Envelopes, Subterfuge And More Lies 

See also ‘Scottish Dental’ → HERE

♦ See our Rogue’s Gallery’

Editor’s note:

There is NO fluoridation in Wales.

logo-aust-f-skeptics

new splash

Comments are closed.

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS AND THE TGA (Aust.)

TGA & CODEX ALIMENTARIUS AND THE TGA (Aust.)

  • No dietary supplements sold as food can exceed potency dosages set down by the Codex Commission. Dietary supplements of higher potency are to be sold as “drugs” by pharmaceutical or phyto-pharmaceutical companies. Supplements without a recommended daily allowance (RDA), such as co-enzyme Q10, will be illegal to sell because they will be considered as “drugs”. ($ V health)

  • All new dietary supplements will be banned unless they have undergone extensive Codex testing (via scientific risk assessment) and final approval. (Too costly for small producers.)

  • Only supplements made from a list of 15 minerals and 13 vitamins will be allowed – in ultra-low potencies mirroring levels that were originally set during World War II to stave off malnutrition.

  • The Codex preamble expressly forbids the use of nutrients to “prevent, treat or cure any condition”.

  • Herbs to be put under a closed committee of the WHO where they are now held to be “untested drugs”.  There is only a short list of “approved herbs” that may be used for specific conditions. While some complex oriental herbal formulas may be permitted, most will not. Ayurvedic, Tibetan, tribal, Aust. indigenous and other traditional medicines that use herbs and natural substances to be forbidden in WTO Member Countries (Aust.). Herbal, shamanic and energy-based medicines are to be forbidden forms of treatment. 

    [Her majesty Queen Elizabeth II uses some of these.]

  • Genetically Modified organisms (GMO’s) to be legal in foods [unlabeled?]

  • Codex is to set permissible upper levels for pesticide residues, toxic chemicals, hormones in food and other environmental contaminants that may be many times greater  than those advocated by chemical and pesticide industry lobby groups.

  • Codex mandates that animal feed can be treated with antibiotics, hormones and growth stimulants. 

  • Codex Further mandates that the irradiation of food go ahead, despite the arguments of food safety experts.

Although the above list may seem extreme, it is difficult to have confidence

in the TGA based on their past performance, e.g. continuing support for fluoridation.

SEE ALSO  WHO, FLUORIDE & CODEX-WTO

WHAT YOU CAN DO !

Do your web searches; complain to your Federal politician in writing, write to the newspapers; get on the radio; and most of all, tell ALL of your friends, and then remind them again and again !

The TGA has done little protect the Australian public in the past.

It is working to restrict the $4 billion Australian supplements industry that is rapidly gaining markets over Big Pharma’s control of the medical industry.

Any of the above proposals if approved would cause:

  • More unemployment therefore more people on the dole

  • A loss of tax revenue to the Australian Government

  • The importation of more foreign goods

The Australian public would loose access to health maintaining supplements which; would also disadvantage sports people, body builders (and pets).

These products and services are consumer funded.

To change the system would put an extra load on the existing over used and

under financed government health system.

Most medical doctors have little knowledge of traditional medicines and nutrition.

Many of these plants and minerals have supplied health to millions people around the world for centuries.

GUNPOINT MEDICINE ?

The TGA have tried to outlaw the growing of some medicinal wild roadside weeds and garden plants previously without success.

Some of these new proposals will force the Australian population to grow, import and produce these health-promoting products ‘illegally’ and or go underground. The government does not have the resources to fully enforce these proposals; which would extend the dole queues, disadvantage the health of Australians, reduce revenue to the Australian Tax Office and restrict the choices of you the reader. 

Green strip

As President Kennedy said:

“If you cannot enforce a law, you do not have a law.

” The TGA’s income is based entirely on fees and charges paid by users of its

services, namely the pharmaceutical industry in Australia.”

logo-aust-f-skeptics

New-Splash

 

EPA Scientist Blasts EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Standard for Fluoride

During that investigation, I have discovered that
the government, 
in its assessment of the risks of fluoride
exposure, 
violated accepted standards of professional conduct.

EPA SCIENTIST BLASTS DRINKING WATER STANDARD FOR FLUORIDE

R. Carton

EPA Scientist Blasts EPA’s

Safe Drinking Water Standard for Fluoride.
The following is an excerpt from a legal affidavit filed in 1993

by

Dr. Robert Carton, Past-President of EPA Headquarters Union
in Washington D.C.  To read the complete affidavit,   click here.

1. I am an environmental scientist currently with the U.S. Army. From September 1972 until May 1992, I was employed full-time by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I spent approximately 15 of those years in the Office of Toxic Substances, managing risk assessments. For two years I was responsible for writing regulations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I was also program manager for compliance of new pollution sources with the National Environmental Policy Act.

2. I was President of the union of EPA professionals for two terms. This union, the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 2050, represented then, and still does, 1100 lawyers, scientists, and engineers at EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

3. I received my B.A. in chemistry from La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA, my M.S. in environmental science from Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, and my Ph.D. in environmental science from Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

4. I recently published an article on the U.S. Cancer – Fluoride situation (Exhibit____), and have managed the preparation of a long list of reports and studies while an employee of EPA.

5. My field of study, interest and expertise, and my previous responsibilities as president of the union of EPA professionals, has led me to consider thoroughly, and, in an impartial manner, the scientific basis for the government’s claims as to what constitutes a safe level of fluoride in drinking water.

6. During that investigation, I have discovered that the government, in its assessment of the risks of fluoride exposure, violated accepted standards of professional conduct.

7. In the spring of 1985, allegations of scientific misconduct in the development of EPA’s fluoride in drinking water standard were made to the union by an EPA professional intimately familiar with the work on the standard.

8. In November of that year, EPA set a new Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL) for fluoride in drinking water of 4 mg/l, which approximately doubled the dose considered to be safe (the previous standard was 1.4 to 2.4 mg/l).

9. As union president-elect, I investigated these allegations and concluded that the scientific documents supporting the decision to raise the RMCL were fraught with tendentious errors and omissions of key data, to the point of constituting scientific fraud.

10. My conclusions were summarized in a statement, given at a meeting of the Drinking Water Subcommittee of the EPA Science Advisory Board, Arlington, VA., on November 1, 1991 (Exhibit____). In that statement I noted the following.

a. The fluoride in drinking water standard, or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL), published by the EPA in the Federal Register on Nov. 14, 1985, is a classic case of political interference with science.

b. The regulation is a fraudulent statement by the Federal Government that 4 mg/l of fluoride in drinking water is safe with an adequate margin of safety.

c. There is evidence that critical information in the scientific and technical support documents used to develop the standard were falsified by the Department of Health and Human Services and the EPA to protect a long-standing public health policy.

d. EPA professionals were never asked to conduct a thorough, independent analysis of the fluoride literature. Instead, their credentials were used to give the appearance of scientific credibility. They were used to support the predetermined conclusion that 4 mg/l of fluoride in drinking water was safe.

e. The EPA management ignored the requirements of the law to protect sensitive individuals such as children, diabetics or people with kidney impairment. Contrary to law, they made the criteria for considering health data so stringent that reasonable concerns for safety were eliminated. Data showing positive correlations between fluoride exposure and genetic effects in almost all laboratory tests were discounted.

f. EPA management based its standard on only one health effect: crippling skeletal fluorosis. In setting the safe level at 4 mg/l, however, they ignored data showing that healthy individuals were at risk of developing crippling skeletal fluorosis if these individuals happened to drink large quantities of water at the “safe” level of 4 mg/l. EPA’s own data showed that some people drink as much as 5.5 liter per day. If these people ingested this amount of water containing 4 mg/l of fluoride, they would receive a daily dose of 22 mg. This exceeds the minimum dose necessary to cause crippling skeletal fluorosis, or “20 mg/day for 20 years” as stated by the EPA and Public Health Service. Most unsettling is the fact that EPA and the National Academy of Sciences can not document the scientific basis for the 20 mg/day threshold.

g. In a recent series of letters between National Academy of Sciences, Ms. Darlene Sherrel, and Sen. Graham of Florida, the NAS was forced to admit that it could not document the derivation of the chronic effect level for crippling skeletal fluorosis. As already mentioned, crippling skeletal fluorosis is the single health effect upon which the fluoride in drinking water standard is based. The threshold is probably lower.

h. There is evidence, ignored by the EPA, in a study by Dr. Geoffrey Smith, that exposure to fluoride at 1 mg/l in drinking water over a long period of time may calcify ligaments and tendons, causing arthritic pains, and may be responsible for the alarming increase in cases of repetitive stress injury. (Exhibit____)

i. EPA management relied upon a report from the Surgeon General which they knew was false. This report claimed to represent conclusions of an expert panel (on which the EPA was present as an observer) when in fact the concerns of this panel for the effects of fluoride on the bones of children, for its effects on the heart, for dental fluorosis, and for the overall lack of scientific data on the effects of fluoride in US drinking water were deleted. It has been reported in the press that these changes were made in the final report without the knowledge or approval of the expert panel.

j. The EPA accepted the falsified report from the Surgeon General’s office and asked a contractor to turn this into an “assessment.” The contractor dutifully collected only literature that supported the report. The report was submitted for public comment, but was never altered to incorporate the volumes of information sent in by world class experts. Any opinions contrary to the report were dismissed. The result is actually a “Draft” stamped “Final.”

11. The apparent coverup of fluoride risks within EPA prompted the EPA professionals’ union, Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, to attempt to file an amicus brief in support of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who sued EPA in 1986 over the fluoride standard. I was responsible for managing the preparation of the brief, which was prepared by the law firm of Lord, Day and Lord of New York City.

12. EPA has also attempted to silence scientists who do not follow the party line. Last year, EPA fired Dr. William L. Marcus, Ph.D. from his job as senior toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, EPA. Judge, David A. Clarke, Jr., declared in his decision on this case on December 3, 1992, that “the reasons given for Dr. Marcus’ firing were a pretext….his employment was terminated because he publicly questioned and opposed EPA’s fluoride policy.” Judge Clark ordered Dr. Marcus to be reinstated and provided with back pay, fringe benefits and interest, attorneys fees, and payed $50,000 in compensatory damages. I testified at length at this hearing.

13. I believe there is a high probability of significant harm to public health from fluoridation and that it is unacceptable as a public health measure.

14. My conclusions regarding the lack of safety of both EPA standards and of fluoridation are based in part on the following:

A. As noted in my statement to the Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board, EPA management relied upon a report from the Surgeon General which it knew was false. (Exhibit____).

B. Dental fluorosis is considered a visible sign that potentially destructive effects of fluoride are also occurring in bone. EPA reported in 1985 that mild dental fluorosis occurs in areas with fluoride levels in drinking water as low as 0.2 mg/l. Objectionable dental fluorosis, i.e. pitting and staining of enamel, was reported by EPA to occur in some individuals at 0.7 mg/l.

C. Despite this knowledge, EPA, even though aware that the report of the Surgeon General’s expert panel had been altered, nevertheless followed this altered version and declared in 1985 that dental fluorosis was not an adverse health effect. Transcripts of the closed-door testimony of this panel, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show that they in fact voted to declare dental fluorosis an adverse health effect. Their declaration was doctored by unknown individuals to achieve a political end: If objectionable dental fluorosis were declared an adverse health effect, as it should be, then fluoridation at 0.8 to 1.2 mg/l would be in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

D. Crippling skeletal fluorosis is the only adverse health effect accepted by EPA, and the only one it considered in setting the MCL of 4 mg/l. According to EPA, this effect occurs when an individual is exposed to more than 20 mg/day for 20 years or more. EPA, however, cannot document the rationale for selecting this effect level in accordance with accepted regulatory procedures. In fact, the government does not know what level of fluoride in water can cause crippling skeletal fluorosis. Thus, its 4 mg/l standard has no scientific basis.

E. In violation of standards of scientific conduct requiring that the MCL protect all citizens, EPA set a level that will cause crippling skeletal fluorosis in 20 years for about 1% of the population, according to its own stated toxic dose of 20 mg/day, and its own data showing 1% of the population drinks more than 5.5 l/day.

F. In further violation of professional ethics, it can also be demonstrated that EPA did not consider, in deriving its standard, arthritic pains – the earliest sign of crippling skeletal fluorosis, and did not derive a safe dose for this effect. Thus, while recommending the addition of fluoride to drinking water, the government does not know the lowest effect level for this stage of the disease. There was evidence available to EPA in 1985, which it ignored, that exposure to fluoride at 1 mg/l in drinking water over a long period of time calcifies ligaments and tendons causing arthritic pains, and may be responsible for the alarming increase in cases of repetitive stress injury.

G. It is clear that fluoride is mutagenic, and that it may well cause cancer, although both are continuously denied by the government. Buried in the report of the National Toxicology Program study on the effects of fluoride in rats and mice were the results of a battery of four genetic toxicology studies showing fluoride to be a mutagen. Three studies were positive for mutagenicity and one was negative. The negative study was invalid based on testimony of the originator of the test itself, Dr. Bruce Ames.

15. It is my best judgment, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty,
that fluoridation presents unacceptable risks to public health,
and that the government cannot prove its claims of safety.

See also:  ↓

Dr. William Hirzy ff copy

Why the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation

logo-aust-f-skeptics

new splash

 

CITY SUED OVER FLUORIDATION + MORE LEGAL INFO.

seal-of-Pennsylvania-Court Judge-F.

Judge John P. Flaherty, [on right ]

CITY-SUED-F

Over the course of five months, the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities.

Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, Judge Flaherty’s jurisdiction to make and enter his findings on November 16, 1978 was expressly sustained and upheld as appears in Aitkenhead v. West View, 397 Atl. 2d 878 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
Nor were his findings ever disturbed on appeal.

In 1988, Justice Flaherty re-affirmed his convictions that fluoridation is a very dangerous practice.

In a letter dated January 26, 1988 to Ms. Evelyn Hannan, he stated:

“It has been years now since the case involving fluoridation was before me as a trial judge,
but since that time nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned
by public fluoridation.  To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that
in-depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a
questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service,
yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence,
that is the tactic most often employed.

Whether government has the right to force what it perceives as a benefit to the public was not directly before me in the case, but that also is to be pondered.

My hope is that groups such as yours will spur the scientific community into an objective posture on this issue.

I enclose an essay which was sent to me a few years ago focusing on the issue presented by analyzing epidemiological law data. Perhaps resolution of this narrow question will provide the answer.

More recently, some people have pointed out that Judge Flaherty’s decision was overturned on appeal and they assumed that therefore fluoridation wasn’t really proved to be harmful. Now a member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Justice Flaherty clarified that his decision to end fluoridation was overturned only on the grounds that his court did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue.
[ Does this infer that fluoridation is beyond the law? – This is worse than war.
   If this trial had been held in Scotland the results would have been different! ]

♦ John P. Flaherty, Jr. (Born 19 November 1931)was a Justice of the
   Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from 1978 to 2001 and
Chief Justice of the Court from 1996 to 2001.
                He retired at the end of 2001.

Green strip

❝   It is not the function of our Government
to keep the citizen from falling into error,
It is the function of the citizen to keep the
Government from falling into error.  

Green strip

R.H.Jackson

Robert Houghwout Jackson

Chief Judge at the War-Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg

NurembergWar Crimes Trial

20th November 1945.  to 1st October 1946.

The Doctors Trial considered the fate of twenty-three German physicians

who either participated in the Nazi program to euthanize persons

deemed “unworthy of life” (the mentally ill, mentally retarded,

or physically disabled) or who conducted experiments on

concentration camp prisoners Without Their Consent.

The Doctors Trial lasted 140 days.
Eighty-five witnesses testified and almost
1,500 documents were introduced.
Sixteen of the doctors charged
were found guilty, severn
were executed.

Nuremberg Trial Pictrue f

SUPPRESSION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN

AUSTRALIA – REGARDING FLUORIDATION

   VICTORIA

In November 1994 the Victorian Parliament passed an amendment to the Fluoridation Act by changing the Constitution to stop the Supreme Court from hearing cases agains Fluoridation. If you are poisoned by fluoride in Victoria tough luck, there is no protection under law. -

   TASMANIA

The Tasmanian Government in 1995 passed a Bill through the Lower House to prohibit the holding of meetings on the subject of Flouridation anywhere at all in Tasmania. Called the Consequential Amendments Bill it was later withdrawn but is being re-worded. Outside of Tasmania, no outcry, no boycotts, why?

   NEW SOUTH WALES

A draconian law was enacted in NSW in 1989. Because of this law, a Council cannot cease Fluoridation of its own water supply, after requests by public demand, unless it gets permission from the Health Department. And there is little chance of that.

Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). This U.N. law states that ‘no one shall be subjected without his consent to medical or scientific experimentation.’ The Health Dept. cannot produce one double blind scientific study which proves absolutely the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. It seems we are all experimental subjects.

If fluoridation is so safe and effective, why this repressive legislation ?

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

FLUORIDE THE NEXT ASBESTOS ?

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

AFFIDAVIT OF GERARD F. JUDD, Ph.D.

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

State of Arizona, County of Maricopa

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT FOND

DU LAC COUNTY
SAFE WATER ASSOCIATION,

INC., Plaintiff,
 vs. 
CITY OF FOND DU LAC, Defendant. Case No. 92 CV 579

Full Original Text → HERE

Gerard F. Judd, Ph.D., being first duly sworn on oath and with personal knowledge of the information contained herein, respectfully states to the Court as follows:

BACKGROUND

1.) I have been a professor of Chemistry at Phoenix College, Phoenix Arizona, since 1965.

2.) I received my B.A. in chemistry from the University of Utah in 1943.

I received my M.S. from the University of Portland in 1948. I received my Ph.D. in physical and organic chemistry from Purdue University in 1953. I did Postdoctoral research at Purdue University, on fluorinated organometallic reactions in 1954.

3.) A few of my more recent research, academic and service honors include:

a. Elected to Emeritus Member of American Chemical Society, 11/92.

b. “20 Year Outstanding Teaching Award and Pin” from Maricopa County Community College District, Dr. Paul A. Elsner, Chancellor, 2/92.

c. Reviewed two fundamental chemistry textbooks for publishers, 5/91.

d. Received “Speaker’s Gold Plated Champion’s Award for Research, Communication and Education,” regarding better teeth, health and government. Arizona Breakfast Club, Harry E. Everingham, President, 11/24/90.

e. “Faculty Appreciation Gift for Outstanding Contributions to Teaching,” Maricopa County Community College District, Phoenix, Arizona, Dr. Paul A. Elsner, Chancellor, 3/4/85.

4.) I have devoted thousands of hours during my career to studying the chemistry of fluoride. In addition, in preparing this affidavit, I have specifically researched and summarized the following professional and technical literature on the epidemiological effects of fluoride:

a.  Journal of Fluoride, August 1992 – January 1983.

b.  Chemical Abstracts, August 1992 – January 1989.

c.  Index Medicus, May, June and July 1992.

d.  Fluoridation The Great Dilemma, a 421-page book by George L. Waldbott, M.D. in collaboration with Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. and H. Lewis McKinney, Ph.D.

e.  A Struggle With Titans, Forces Behind Fluoridation, a 383-page book by George L. Waldbott, M.D. (a scientist’s look at fluoridation).

f.  Fluoridation, the Aging Factor, a 203-page book by John Yiamouyannis, Ph.D. in Biochemistry, and world-leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride.

g.  Fluoride, The Freedom Fight, a 207-page book by Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, M.D. (The Netherlands).

h.  Fluoridation, a 264-page book by Isabel Jansen, R.N.

i.  The Fluoride Question, Panacea or Poison?, a 176-page book by Anne-Lise Gotzsche, medical journalist (England).

J.  Hello, Test Animals… Chinchillas or You and Your Grandchildren, a 180-page book by W. R. Cox, chinchilla breeder and researcher.

k.  The Grim Truth About Fluoridation, a 128-page book by Robert M. Buck, journalist.

l.  Fluoridation, Poison on Tap, a 460-page book by Glen S. R. Walker, consultant in strategic metals, munitions, and chemical industry, registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities in Australia.

m.  Fluoride in Australia, a Case to Answer, a 159-page book by Wendy Varney, journalist.

5.) During the past two years I have personally discussed the effects of artificial fluoridation of drinking water with many individuals possessing outstanding background on the subject of fluoridation, including the following:

a.  Dr. Albert Burgstahler, Ph.D., University of Kansas;

b.  Dr. Mel Ruber, Ph.D., Columbia, Maryland;

c.  Dr. Robert Carton, Ph.D., former head of EPA Employees Union, Environmental Protection Agency,   Washington, D.C.;

d.  Dr. William Marcus, Ph.D., epidemiologist, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.;

e.  Dr. William Foulkes, M.D., Vancouver, Washington, former head of Ministry of Health in British Columbia;

f.  Dr. John Colquhoun, Ph.D., Titi Rangi, New Zealand;

g.  Dr. Albert Schatz, Ph.D., chemistry researcher, retired, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

h. Dr. Cornelius Steelink, Ph.D., Chemistry Professor, University of Arizona;

i.  Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D., Delaware, Ohio;

j.  Dr. John R. Lee, M.D., Sebastopol, California. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE SAFETY OF FLUORIDATION

6.) My research, communication and discovery concerning the epidemiological effects of fluoridation has provided me with solid scientific evidence on which to base the following conclusions.

7.) Fluoride has never been established as, and is not, essential in nutrition for soft tissues, bones or teeth.

8.) There are no experiments or data which establish that fluoride in any form or in any concentration is harmless when put into drinking water for human consumption or usage.

9.) Fluoride at low levels has been shown to unsnap hydrogen bonds in the enzyme cytochrome oxidase, and thus ruin its ability to handle oxygen in humans, animals or plants. (Exhibit).

10.) It is well-established in academic and industrial chemical industry that the hydrogen-fluoride hydrogen bond is stronger than the hydrogen-nitrogen or hydrogen-oxygen hydrogen bonds characteristic of human enzymes. Therefore, human enzyme systems (thousands of enzymes) are subject to destruction when water containing fluoride is consumed. After a few weeks for some, and a lifetime for others, a large enough reservoir of fluoride is built up to cause serious ailments.

11.) At least 63 human, animal and plant enzymes are for the most part destroyed or modified by fluoride.

12.) A summary of important epidemiological effects of fluoride from Chemical Abstracts, 1992-1989 (53 pages); Journal of Fluoride, August 1992-January 1993 (42 pages); and Index Medicus, May, June and July 1992 (3 pages) failed to produce even one article proving fluoride to be harmless.

13.) Contrariwise, hundreds of experiments on test animals, humans, plants, and their cells, have invariably demonstrated harmful effects.

14.) A large number of epidemiological effects in the way of ailments and allergies caused by fluoride have been clinically established by competent authorities, including those below.

15.) Forty-nine or more serious allergenic conditions were established by George Waldbott, M.D. These were proven by removing patients from drinking water with fluoride in it, in which case they were cured. This was followed up with single- or double-blind tests with fluoride tablets.

16.) Eight of Dr. Waldbott’s side effects were confirmed through double-blind tests organized by Dr. H. Moolenburgh, with 12 other physicians, one pharmacist, and one attorney. (Exhibit). Only one of these side effects presented in court was sufficient to cause the Holland Ministry of Health to discontinue fluoridation of water in that country. These side effects are listed in Waldbott’s book, pp. 123-125.

17.) Genetic changes in bone cells and sperm cells of mice were thoroughly studied, re-studied and established by Dr. Albert Taylor.

This work has been confirmed by numerous other researchers.

18.) Fluoride as a factor in cataracts has been established by statistical studies of Dr. Ionel F. Rapaport and confirmed by the research of Dr. Burgstahler. This has also been confirmed by analysis of cataracted and un-cataracted eye lenses. The older the person, the more the fluoride in the lens. (Exhibit).

19.) SIDS (crib or cot death) has been related to fluoride poisoning by Dr. J. Colquhoun (exhibit), Dr. Bruce Spittle, and others.

20.) Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and chronic fluoride toxicity (CFT) have been found to be very closely related in their symptoms (Exhibit).

21.) RSI (repetitive stress injury, or carpal tunnel syndrome) has been linked to the accumulation of fluoride in the bone by Dr. Geoffrey E. Smith. Additional work supporting this link was found by Dr. Sutton. (Exhibit).

22.) Dental fluorosis has been shown recently to occur at fluoride levels as low as .3 ppm, as opposed to earlier studies of Dr. H. Trendly Dean, who set 1.0 as a tolerable limit, allowing 24 percent fluorosis. The degree of fluorosis depends on the nutritional status of the person.

23.) Dr. Waldbott had over 400 cases of pre-skeletal bone fluorosis in patients, which he established was caused by their drinking fluoridated water. (Exhibit) This has been further confirmed by many other studies. The degree of bone fluorosis is strictly related to bone fluoride content.

24.) Embrittled bones are caused by drinking fluoridated water, as well as by administration of tablets to “harden bones.” (Riggs study, Exhibit; Utah study, Exhibit; Jacobson’s study, Exhibit; Cooper’s study, Exhibit; and Sower’s study, Exhibit.

25.) Increased infant mortality and birth defects (two to three times increase) was established by Dr. Albert Schatz to be present in Chilean children administered fluoridated water in an experimental study in Curico, Chili, with San Fernando and La Serena as a control towns. (Exhibit). Dr. Schatz found fluoridation did no good for teeth, and caused enormous increase in miscarriages. The malformations and infant mortality dropped dramatically upon cessation of the fluoridation. Similar malformations and infant mortalities are now occurring in U.S.

26.) C. R. Cox, working with the University of Oregon, found that 17 ppm fluoride in feed caused constipation, great mature and baby chinchilla death, small litters and over four generations a smaller, inferior rabbit.

27.) Down’s Syndrome was established to be linked to consumption of fluoride through statistical studies and re-studies by Dr. Ionel F. Rapaport, M.D. and Waldbott, Fluoridation the Great Dilemma, pp. 212-219. Dr. Rapaport also found that 70% of Down’s Syndrome babies were born with cataracted eyes.

28.) Genu valgum (knock knees) has been reported as having been caused by fluoride in drinking water..

29.) Gilbert’s Disease (hemorrhagic yellow jaundice) has been cured by taking the patient off fluoridated drinking water. (Exhibit).

30.) Collagen synthesis has been shown to be impeded by fluoride by the work of B. Uslu, Andola School of Medicine, Eskisehir, Turkey.

31.) Immunosuppression, according to Sutton and Gibson, may be caused by consumption of fluoride. (See Exhibits).

32.) Decreased immunodiffusion has been established as due to fluoride ion, making it a negative chemitaxic agent (this means it impedes the “taxiing” or motion effect). (Exhibit).

33.) Between 1953 and 1968, there were approximately 572,810 (44,062 per year average) more deaths due to all types of cancer in 10 major fluoridated cities compared to non-fluoridated cities. Sex, race and age changes in these populations were insignificant during this period, so that nothing else could be established as causal. (Exhibit).

34.) In Antigo, Wisconsin, heart attacks were shown to dramatically increase both in the general population and the people under 65 and over 65 when fluoridation was instituted and continued over 35 years.

35.) A tremendous increase in caiman (alligator) deaths was experienced once Kansas City, Kansas water was fluoridated at the Parrot Hill farms under the care of Patricia Jacobs, naturalist. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION

36.) In contrast to the claims of the Human Health Services and the American Dental Association that fluoride reduces DMF (decayed, missing, filled teeth) 65 percent, it has now been established through a very large number of reliable studies that fluoride may actually cause a slight amount of DMF. (A large amount of DMF is actually related to nutrition.)

37.) Dr. Yiamouyiannis found that of 39,200 students, ages 5-19, from 89 fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the teeth of those living in non-fluoridated areas had slightly less DMF. (Exhibit).

38.) A survey of 1,500 fifth grade students in Missouri gave slightly lower DMF for those who lived in a non-fluoridated area. This was also true in a survey of 1500 6th graders.(Exhibit).

39.) A study of school children in Tucson, Arizona by Dr. Cornelius Steelink (Chemistry Department, University of Arizona), established that there was an increase in DMF with an increase in fluoride in the water. (Exhibit).

40.) A thorough study of the entire population of Japan (included 20,000 school children, 1972) established that when the fluoride in the drinking water was above .4 ppm there was more decay. (Exhibit).

41.) A study of Auckland, New Zealand, found that DMF decreases depended heavily on dental education in the schools and the salary of people from various areas, and insignificantly on the amount of fluoride in the water. (Exhibit).

42.) In Garis, Africa a high proportion of 14 to 15-year-olds had first permanent molars which were extensively carious or missing despite 1.06 ppm fluoride in drinking water. High sugar intake was a possible factor.

43.) Earlier “studies” justifying fluoridation of drinking water have been unmasked and debunked by competent authorities (Dr. Waldbott, Dr. Colquhoun, Dr. Foulkes, Dr. Mark Diesendorf, Dr. Sutton, Dr. Exner and Dr. Rudolf Ziegelbecker) on the basis of neglecting variables, cheating and group selection, not completing the studies, etc. (Exhibits).

44.) As one example, phosphate, calcium and strontium were not accounted for in the Newburgh-Kingston study, or any other study, to the best of my knowledge. Dr. Waldbott established that the Kingston water had deficiencies of these elements.

CONCLUSION

 My research has made it clear that the American Dental Association and U. S. Human Health Services have made a wrong turn in their attempt to improve the teeth of the American public.

 Fluoride in drinking water should be limited to .1 ppm where possible, since reverse osmosis can easily reduce fluoride below this value.

 It is my best judgment, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is also dangerous to the health of consumers.

 I make this Affidavit in support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Dated this _____ day of ________, 1993. ____________________

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

Brian Martin

SCIENCE POLICY: DISSENT AND ITS DIFFICULTIES
Published in Philosophy and Social Action,
Vol. 12, No. 1, January-March 1986, pp. 5-23
pdf of published article
 by Brian Martin
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/86psa.html

See also → HERE

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

See Our Letters to Anna Bligh → HERE

Bligh-legacy-image-copy

A.BLIGH-promise

 

logo-aust-f-skeptics

New-Splash

FLUORIDE THE NEXT ASBESTOS ?

Image-of-Qld

 From: Doug Cross                    
 www.ukcaf.org
 Date: 19 May 2013

'In case you missed it'

    Dear All,

Good to see that somebody appears to take notice of what I write! MP Jason Woodforth’s [Qld State Gov.] warning that “Fluoride is the next asbestos!” is a direct quote from an article that I published on our web site on 22nd June 2011 (see final paragraph of ‘A disreputable trade-off: SCHER ignores the humanitarian impacts of water fluoridation.’, at  http://www.ukcaf.org/_schers_final_report.html )

Since this is such an important claim, it’s worth recording precisely where that statement came from, so that anyone wishing to repeat it can substantiate its provenance.

In the summer of 2004 I had a meeting in London with Marie-Louise Rossi. She was the Chief Executive of the International Underwriting Association, and had a formal conference with her and some of her Associates at the IUA’s London Headquarters. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the insurance implications of the provable harm caused to children by water fluoridation. We did not discuss any of the more controversial health concerns of the practice, confining the discussion almost exclusively to the implications of the very large proportion of children known to develop this disfiguring condition.

I explained to the meeting the legal problems that are involved with this form of compulsory medication, and the issues of liability that inevitably emerge, especially for any Council, Health Authority or any other public servant that becomes involved in the imposition of this damaging, unethical and illegal form of medical assault.

And as I went through the information that I had prepared for the IUA, Ms. Rossi became more and more concerned. Eventually she blurted out, “My God! This is the next asbestos!” That’s where Mr Woodforth’s statement originated, from the very top of the Underwriting sector, and specifically in relation to water fluoridation. So now you know – and if anyone challenges that comment, I can verify to you now that this is indeed the original source.

So what does this mean for you in Australia now, and indeed, pretty well everywhere else in the world where this form of uninsurable activity is carried out? Well, here’s how it works.

When a member of the public makes any claim against an insured person or corporation, and an award is either agreed or awarded by a Court against the respondent, it is generally their insurers who will have to foot the bill – always assuming that they actually have insurance cover. So ultimately, whilst the insurers write the policies, the risk is usually reinsured through guarantees provided by professional underwriters, acting in the interests of their investors. There’s a hierarchy of people who agree to provide finance that is used to insure against claims. These investors hope that, provided the insurers do their sums right then they, the investors, will eventually make a profit.

But suppose that an insurer fails to understand the risk of an activity in which one of its clients is engaged, and the insured does not disclose – or even recognise – that what they are doing may eventually result in a claim at some later date? Then the investors have a big problem – if the insurer gets it wrong, then ultimately they have to fork out the cash.

That’s precisely what happened to the ‘Names’ (the investors) of Lloyds of London in the 1990s, over the asbestosis/mesothelioma claims, which were bought many years after exposure under employers’ liability or workers’ compensation insurances. As Wikipedia explains:

…the insurer did not understand the full nature of the future risk back in the 1960s, it and its reinsurers would not have properly reserved for it. In the case of Lloyd’s this resulted in the bankruptcy of thousands of individual investors who indemnified [under 'reinsurance-to-close'] general liability insurance written from the 1940s to the mid-1970s for companies with exposure to asbestosis claims.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London)

And this is why Ms Rossi and the International Underwriting Association were so concerned at hearing what I had to tell them about the public risks of damage from water fluoridation. Within the Health Sector, most health professionals and authorities are required to carry Professional Indemnity Insurance against claims brought against them by patients and others. Insurers will not cover ‘foreseeable risks’ – that is, any activity that, if engaged in by a Client, has a very high probability of resulting in claims against the insurer. (In the UK the government insures itself for claims against to National Health Service, but hey! it’s not their money anyway!) But individual health professionals can still get hit for private actions – remember that if you are a Dental Officer pushing fluoride outside office hours!

And as we are all well aware, dental fluorosis of at least some detectable level affects around half of all children exposed to fluoridated water during their early childhood (York Review of Water Fluoridation, 2000). Around one in eight kids will get it so badly that they need cosmetic dental treatment for the rest of their lives. In the UK the lifetime costs are an average of around £30,000 – about the same as the cost of getting a university education.

So, as a foreseeable risk, anyone engaged in any professional or business capacity whatever in the promotion of implementation of fluoridation may be personally liable for the costs. Insurers will start to recognise it as a foreseeable risk and refuse to cover it under professional indemnity or public liability insurance.

And yes, we do have proof of this:

In a recent letter from Zurich Insurance, one of the principle insurers of Local Authorities in the UK, the company confirms that it will not indemnify Councils for any claims against them for damage caused to members of the public arising from water fluoridation.

Is this a significant problem for Health Professionals and Councils advocating fluoridation, or even forcing fluoridation on unwilling communities?

Absolutely! Here’s what happened to Lloyds of London ‘Names’ over the asbestos scandal:

Lloyd’s set up a separate vehicle known as Equitas in 1996 to handle asbestos-related claims. This was effectively acquired by Berkshire Hathaway a decade later amid fears it was running out of funds. Warren Buffett’s investment vehicle agreed to take on Equitas’ staff, operations, liabilities and most of its assets. It also agreed to provide up to £3.7bn in reinsurance cover, therefore protecting Equitas against the risk of larger-than-expected claims. Lloyd’s provided £90m as part of the deal. Although most of the Names paid up and agreed to this scheme to reinsure their debt, 1,200 refused. About 200 of this second group responded by launching a counter-suit for compensation, which claimed that Lloyd’s brochures had led them to believe that the cover, called Reinsurance To Close (RITC), completely ended their liabilities at the end of each underwriting year. The names spent years battling against Lloyd’s in the courts, claiming they had been misled over insurance deals they bought into prior to the market’s near collapse. The High Court eventually ruled against them in July 2008, a decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In June 2009, a final group of 35 individuals were declared bankrupt in the High Court.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/insurance/8463871/How-asbestos-brought-Lloyds-of-London-to-its-knees-in-the-90s.html)

If you think about that in relation to fluoridation, you’ll realise just why Ms Rossi and the IUA were so alarmed at what I told them. The numbers of people affected by asbestos run into hundreds of thousands; ‘dental fluorosis of  aesthetic concern’ (mild and worse) affects at least 10,000 children every year in the UK alone, and far more elsewhere. Regarding the risks from exposure to asbestos, the UK’s Health and Safety Executive considers that there is no minimum threshold that exists for exposure to asbestos below which a person is at zero risk of developing mesothelioma. Remarkably, the EU’s SCHER came to precisely that same view regarding the risks of damage to human teeth and bones caused by fluoridation only a couple of years ago!

We are talking about big money here – in the UK alone, if all kids needing cosmetic dental treatment actually found the money to pay for it, then the dental profession would rake in around an additional £300 million in new income every year for as long as fluoridation continues. And our intellectually compromised British government actually aims to quadruple the extent of water fluoridation as soon as it can get past the obstacles of inconveniently unconvinced members of the public (us ‘Activists’, as Queensland Health likes to label folk like me! Bur hey! – who wants to be a ‘pacifist’ anyway?), and the curiously slippery water companies, who just can’t seem to get their plans to the point at which they can actually start new schemes.

Make no mistake about this – if the insurance sector is getting cold feet about covering those who aspire to poison our kids, and cause them grief – especially financial grief – that will result in claims for compensation, then they are not going to carry the can for this one. The fluoride advocates will find themselves in the same boat as those unfortunate ‘Names’ at Lloyds of London who were unwittingly caught out by the asbestos disaster.

When the next asbestos hits, this time from the very water that pours from the faucets in your own homes, both you and the Health Authorities and Councils will be on your own. So heed Mr. Woodforth’s warning and make sure that those pushing fluoride at you are aware that everything that they own could soon be at risk. The insurers will be out through the door like rats up a drainpipe, leaving you to hold the baby.

In case you think that you can ignore Ms. Rossi’s concern, here’s what her CV says about her:

Marie-Louise-Rossi

The late Marie-Louise Rossi

Over three decades in the City of London, Marie-Louise has developed an expertise in many areas including insurance. For over eleven years she worked as Chief Executive of the International Underwriting Association (and its predecessor) representing over £11bn pa of international insurance and reinsurance markets to governments and international institutions worldwide. Marie-Louise has worked closely with the EU Commission  and the European Parliament, as well as with the then DTI and the CBI. She was Head of Insurance and Risk Management for the New Security Foundation (formerly NATO forum for Business and Security) and was the author of The Single Market in Insurance (1992).

(http://www.grahambishop.com/StaticPage.aspx?ID=59&Parent_ID=56&SAID=88)

Doug Cross

Director, UK Councils Against Fluoridation   www.ukcaf.org

18th May 2013

Vit.c strip

LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST FLUORIDATION

Vit.c strip

notice of complaint F.

Vit.c strip

There are a  few names in our ‘ROGUES GALLERY  that might
consider taking a low profile after reading the above. 

Anna Bligh's Legacy  F.

Anna B's Guarantee copy

Vit.c strip

logo-aust-f-skeptics

new splash

“CANCER INCREASED IN FLUORIDATED CITIES” – Supreme Court Judge

The most powerful court in America is not
the United States Supreme Court but,
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

seal-of-Pennsylvania-Court

—  CITY SUED OVER FLUORIDATION —

CITY-SUED-F

Vit.c strip

Judge-F.

Judge John P. Flaherty, [ on right ]

Now a Supreme Court Judge presided over the trial in the case of

Paul Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, No. GD-4585-78.

The city was sued over fluoridation. On 16 November 1978,

Judge Flaherty handed down his decree. The critical

parts of his opinion read as follows:

❝ Over the course of five months, the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968.

The study concluded that there was a significant increase
in cancer mortality 
in the fluoridated cities.❞

Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, Judge Flaherty’s jurisdiction to make and enter his findings on November 16, 1978 was expressly sustained and upheld as appears in Aitkenhead v. West View, 397 Atl. 2d 878 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Nor were his findings ever disturbed on appeal.

In 1988, Justice Flaherty re-affirmed his convictions

that fluoridation is a very dangerous practice.

In a letter dated January 26, 1988 to Ms. Evelyn Hannan, he stated,

❝  It has been years now since the case involving fluoridation was before me as a trial judge, but since that time nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in-depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.

Whether government has the right to force what it perceives as a benefit to the public was not directly before me in the case, but that also is to be pondered.

My hope is that groups such as yours will spur the scientific community into an objective posture on this issue.

I enclose an essay which was sent to me a few years ago focusing on the issue presented by analyzing epidemiological law data. Perhaps resolution of this narrow question will provide the answer. ❞

More recently, some people have pointed out that Judge Flaherty’s decision was overturned on appeal and they assumed that therefore fluoridation wasn’t really proved to be harmful. Now a member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Justice Flaherty clarified that his decision to end fluoridation was overturned only on the grounds that his court did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue.

         ♦

John P. Flaherty, Jr. (Born 19 November 1931)

was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
from 1978 to 2001 and Chief Justice of the Court from 1996 to 2001.
He retired at the end of 2001.

Vit.c strip

SUPPRESSION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN

AUSTRALIA REGARDING FLUORIDATION:

VICTORIA

In November 1994 the Victorian Parliament passed an amendment to the Fluoridation Act by changing the Constitution to stop the Supreme Court from hearing cases against Artificial Fluoridation. If you are poisoned by fluoride in Victoria tough luck, there is no protection under law.

TASMANIA

The Tasmanian Government in 1995 passed a Bill through the Lower House to prohibit the holding of meetings on the subject of Flouridation anywhere at all in Tasmania. Called the Consequential Amendments Bill it was later withdrawn but is being re-worded. Outside of Tasmania, no outcry, no boycotts, why?

NEW SOUTH WALES

A draconian law was enacted in NSW in 1989. Because of this law, a Council cannot cease Fluoridation of its own water supply, after requests by public demand, unless it gets permission from the Health Department. And there is little chance of that.

Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). This U.N. law states that ‘no one shall be subjected without his consent to medical or scientific experimentation.’ The Health Dept. cannot produce one double blind scientific study which proves absolutely the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. It seems we are all experimental subjects.

If fluoridation is so safe or effective, why this repressive legislation ?

Why don’t we hear about it in the media?

Vit.c strip

 ” FLUORIDE THE NEXT ASBESTOS “

logo-aust-f-skeptics

New-Splash