A collection of Critiques of the York Review
THE U.K. GOVERNMENT YORK REVIEW ON FLUORIDATION
by Glen S.R.Walker
Who are the real beneficiaries of Fluoridation?
Not children, nor adults, not the population at large Fluoridation is a commercial, industrial "invention" to rid poisonous fluoride waste pollution from fertiliser factories, clearly indicating who is the real beneficiary. The latest Fluoridation "Final" Review, October 2000 at York University on behalf of the UK Government, signposts that the beneficiaries are not the people. The fluoridation commercial invention enjoys the world's greatest ever financial protection, not to be confused with medical, dental, or pharmaceutical fundamentals of science. Perhaps the correct classification of fluoridation, medical, dental and political, is encapsulated in the title of the book, "The Greatest Fraud ? Fluoridation", by the late Dr. Philip R.N. Sutton, D.D.Sc., L.D.S., F.R.A.C.D.S., Formerly Academic Associate and Senior Research Fellow Dental School, University of Melbourne. That book was his fourth book on fluoridation.
The York Review established that fluoridation dental hype is unacceptable exaggerated junk science, and at that date, October 2000, still no acceptable scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness was found. The Review Study found most dental fluoridation data of a low scientific standard. Truth seemed to surface from the water? Who are the beneficiaries of fluoridated water? From where does all the huge finance originate? Where does its pathway of scientific deception meander worldwide, and who handles it accordingly? The only situation for the people to become a beneficiary of fluoridation would be a politically democratic action on behalf of the people, and immediately stop fluoridation in Australia. Otherwise the beneficiary is back to square one, the fertiliser factories, and their associated promoters. The fluoridation straw houses rely upon trusted important organisations such as The World Health Organisation (W.H.O.), the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (N.H. & M.R.C.), The Australian Medical Association (A.M.A.), and politicians of all persuasions throughout Australian Parliaments, Health Departments and their Ministers, their bureaucrats, and selected Committees overseeing fluoridation.
Not one of the above can produce scientific evidence proving safety and effectiveness of fluoridation for all people. Careful consideration should be observed, that safety and effectiveness must not be separated. These organisations must know something privy only to themselves as a group, and carefully protected from public scrutiny, otherwise on the available scientific evidence, they should stop fluoridation. One elderly scholar suggested fluoridation and is disciples fall into the following class:
"If you don't know anything about a subject, write about it, and if you don't know anything about a matter, teach it!"
The apathy of Australian people is beyond belief, when they allow politicians to proceed with compulsory mass medication through fluoridation without any proof of safety and effectiveness. (N.H. and M.R.C.). Hitler is recorded in 1939 as saying:
"A good thing for the government is the people do not think."
An excellent example of community apathy and its dangerous consequences if not recognised by the population. There is no argument that the actions of politicians on behalf of the people should have a paramount qualification:
"Not to harm any person but to benefit all."
That does not fit the force-fed daily dose of fluoride via your kitchen tap and with the compliments of your elected politician you voted into Parliament to serve you in accordance with the Australian Constitution. Commonsense, simple chemistry knowledge, together with a dash of honesty, results in a logic that naturally disqualifies any and indeed all the great hype about fluoridation being a process of human benefit to all age groups with all known health variables. The difference between Governments, politicians, bureaucrats, quangos, selected Government Investigators and Industry is that no Board of Directors or Management would survive in industry, if they could not find any proof relating to their product.
What a contrast to Government Controlled Human Health and their God of Fluoridation, built on sacred sites like Fertiliser Factories and Aluminium Smelters, an untouchable Cult. The York Review and the N.H. and M.R.C. cannot find actual scientific data that supports their fluoride dogma, all of which should immediately put an official stop to fluoridation, a case of courage and honesty prevailing. Obviously fluoridation has benefits "for some", but not for human health with Government compulsory mass medication against people's wishes. If all things were equal, there would be cause for legal action against the perpetrators of fluoridation, but the untouchable Fluoridation Cult has too many dollars in their guns that fire in many directions causing gold shrapnel to spread in a ubiquitous manner. It is the modern case of "where the arrow falls".
The science of fluoridation as promulgated by responsible Government servants, politicians, Ministers of Health, Health Departments and the dental fraternity, supported by the A.M.A., fail in their strange fluoride endeavours, on the principles of pharmacology; if one wishes to be honest and professional: "dose related evidence necessary". None of the above know what daily dose of fluoride each or any person ingests. So the "principle of pharmacology" is ignored, in favour of a commercial process devoid of medical science and human safety. The fluoride game seems to be well controlled - No Whistle Blowers in sight!
With the Sydney 2000 Olympics over, the scribes are analysing results. One important statistic not reported in the media was that the source of drinking water was bottled water, not Sydney's fluoridated tap water. That was reserved for Sydney people in their homes and not safe for visiting athletes and their representatives. However, all that aside, Australians are branded "great sports", they drink their fluoridated polluted tap water and pour money into the coffers of international, overseas fertiliser factories. We not only pay for the stuff, but help the factories rid themselves of the fluoride waste toxic pollutant, not otherwise permitted to be dumped anywhere. Dumping fluoride pollutants into drinking water supplies was considered some years ago, a great commercial idea, ignoring the fact that it had never been a scientific medical discovery, through normal medical research nor has passed today's necessary Government testing. It was, and still is, an untouchable process, protected by the U.S. Government. An untouchable process now protected by law in Australia. Fluoridation untouchable? Yes, by law we cannot take a case against fluoridation to the Supreme Court. (Victorian Fluoridation Act 1993).
The fluoridation concept was strategically flawed from the beginning, but where there is gold and plenty of it, there is power beyond the laws of chemistry, medicine, and sadly politics in particular. Printing the Fluoridation Act the Government leaves out the main purpose of fluoridation. In reality fluoridation is to establish human walking waste disposal units, forced to consume the waste toxic pollutant from foreign fertiliser factories. Concern about fluoridation festers world wide, where some democratic (sic) governments ignore their Constitutions and the "will of the people". We are asked to accept that politicians know what is good for people to eat, drink and breathe, totally against the Australian Constitution, where mass medication is prohibited under Clause (s51. xxiiiA.).
Forced-fed fluoridation is civil conscription! Democracy in Australia? Then ponder the following. The Australian Constitution under legislative powers, "The judicature" states: "The High Court is a court of general appeal from Supreme Courts of the States." (s.72) This identifies the so-called democratic Parliament of Victoria, where the Victorian Fluoridation Act was altered by a unanimous decision 28th November, 1993 to:
"Prohibit the Victorian Supreme Court entertaining an action against Fluoridation and its operation in Victoria." The Minister for Health, Mrs M. Tehan, told the Parliament, 28th October, 1993: "The reason for limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in this way is that fluoridation of public water supply is so important in the interest of public health." (Hansard 28th October, 1993)
She did not qualify the meaning of "important"! Why could a Government pass such a despotic law when their collective personnel, and political party agenda, guarantees to the people of Victoria that fluoridation of public drinking water supplies is perfectly safe? But it is not safe. Perhaps we have a new Murphy's Law; Government guarantees that require laws to prohibit the democratic questioning of intellectually dishonest government, completely and enthusiastically adopted by both Liberal and Labor in convoluted dictatorship. There has never been any semblance of the necessary compliance to science, open discussion, and unbiased dialogue conducted in a democratic, honest and indeed civilised manner under the rules of decency, compassion, quality professionalism and the Constitution.
The missing link of course is the "establishment do-gooder organisations" they dare not touch the untouchable. The Fluoride Armadillo camouflaged appearance is disguised as intelligent scientific knowledge, hoping "no one will be the wiser" smothering exposure of the real fluoridation fraud. The "Clayton" fluoride studies are still in process and highlight the shallow depth of knowledge and the deception incorporating the presentations and declarations in the fluoride lobby's "loose-leaf" sales manual each page a Gem, expensively presented, giving pride of place in many prominent areas.
York Review into fluoridation
The British Government has just released October 2000, The Final Fluoridation Study conducted by York University. (200 pages) The study pronounced that fluoridation provided a 15% benefit to children living in fluoridated areas, data that is at variance with the usual past humbug claims by dentists and governments of 60-90% benefit. However, the very important statement from York University Review was the way they coupled the 15% decay benefit with a 48% disadvantage for children suffering dental fluorosis, mottled teeth. If a drug company promoted a product at 60-90% benefit, and then admitted, maybe only 15%, but plus a 48% harm from the product, they would be in court and denigrated by all those do-gooder organisations, but not fluoridation, why? Will they explain, space is available. The York Government study was touted "to end all studies into fluoridation", and is described so well by a U.S. researcher indicating the scientific standard of the published result.
"The studies of the study that studies the studies pointed out that this study that had studied the studies had left some 3000 studies unstudied, and they called for a study of studies that would study all studies and therefore not necessitate a study of the study of the studies as this study had done." Another researcher stated: "Dentists have to stop giving the illusion they are helping the poor by throwing some fluoride pollutant chemicals into their drinking water."
The York study found no evidence that the "poor" were "great beneficiaries" as suggested or indeed guaranteed by our Government. That ploy of "helping the poor" is perhaps the main persuasive con job relating to misleading the public on fluoridation. Another quote from a scientist's research into the York studies:
"Basic human rights would argue against 'mass medication' of any kind, but to medicate without strong evidence or sound reason, is a crime against humanity; the York study satisfactorily shows there can be no clear evidence for fluoridation at this point of time."
A general consensus by the York study is the lack of high class studies to prove all the claims about fluoridation, most of which are now documented as "low standard". We could have told them before wasting their time on the dental tooth fairy. A quote of interest from an interview with Andreas Schuld at Radio Station CKST AM 1040, Vancouver, Canada, 16th October, 2000:
At the beginning of their Review they state:
"Any future research into safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base."
"No level A studies, and very few level B studies were identified by the search."
That statement in particular will embarrass dentists and fluoride pushers because it is their main appeal to people's emotions in their sales pitch for fluoridation. "Help the poor and disadvantaged." Read any paper on fluoridation and indeed the N.H. and M.R.C. claims, that fluoridation is the great benefactor for "Poor and disadvantaged children". Perhaps the main evidence of the Review is the York Statement:
"Objective, attempts to access the effect of water fluoridation on developing teeth."
"... for this objective, the quality of studies found, was only moderate (level B)."
"To have clear confidence in the ability to answer the question in this objective the quality of evidence would need to be higher."
On the serious harm to children suffering dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, they state:
"While fluorosis can occur within a few years of exposure during tooth development, other adverse effects may require long-term exposure to occur. It is possible that long-term exposure has not been captured by these studies." (Emphasis added)
The content of the York Review confounds the reader because of so much data they rejected which could have answered more directly their many expressions of fluoridation safety and effectiveness. Their excuse is recorded:
"In conducting a large systematic Review that extends back to the late 1930s, limitations are inevitable."
"The primary limitations of the Review is the quality of the research included." (Their choice of data) (Emphasis added)
If the York Review had scientifically studied the 1930s history on the introduction of fluoridation, its sponsors, and the real reason for its U.S. Government adoption, the Review would be forced to admit fluoridation is nothing more than a commercial process contrary to a medical process and the planned beneficiaries are/were not "the people" but the processors of the fluoride toxic pollutant. The tide is turning and a change of personnel at the water edge. Our people need no longer join King Canute, the dentists are now attempting to hold back the tide of truth crashing on the shore of established science.
Fluoridation? The whole truth and nothing but the truth.Professor Trevor Sheldon, Chairman of the U.K. Government Research into fluoridation, on behalf of the U.K. Government Department of Health Studies, York University, October 2000, explained in his official statement, 10th December 2000, the real "findings" in their scientific research. He supplied the following:
(Signed) TA. Sheldon. Professor Trevor Sheldon, MSc, MSc, DSc, FMedSci." (Emphasis added)
It is important to consider the U.K. Government Research 2000, it confirms the statement by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, that in Australia -
"there is a current dearth of an adequate evaluative database." (N.H. and M.R.C. Report, 1991, p.139)
With confirmation, here and abroad, that there is no scientific evidence of fluoridation safety we keep asking Why do politicians Bless their God of Fluoridation? And all based on scientific nothingness! Fluoridation is stranger than fiction, indeed based on dangerous fiction, swallowed up so enthusiastically by the common naive (to put it kindly) political agenda, that supports obvious intellectually dishonest medical and pharmacological principles based on commercialism, lacking old fashioned democracy, honest Government and knowing the beneficiary is not the people of this "Nation of Freedom and Individual Liberty. The question is so simple, for the average person, but the conveniently scientific blind commercially orientated politicians proceed like Brown's Cows and follow, The Why, and in whose interests? (Unlimited space available for reply from Health Ministers, but don't hold your breath? They do not reply to our letters!) There is no scientific evidence, world wide, proving fluoridation safe and effective so the question to Parliaments and members is -Why, why, why daily dose a population by compulsion with an unproven drug (F) a waste by-product pollutant from industry? Australia the Land of individual Liberty! (The Prime Minister John Howard 1.1.01). We look forward to reply from the Prime Minister and Premiers of all Australian States naming the real beneficiaries of fluoridation acknowledging the process is not classified as proven safe for humans.