The fluoridation fraud is facing a strong rebellion in Qld

[Whiskers]

I would start by differentiating this thread "Fluoridation" from the previous "Fluoride" thread, in the sense that I accept there may be some benefit in fluoride products like tooth paste for some people if they choose to use them, but having our health bureaucrats demand we put filthy contaminated fluoride by-products in our drinking water is quite another.

From what I'm hearing at least two councils in the Burnett region have decided to turn off or not connect to fluoridation.

Bundaberg has dug it's heels in and told the Qld chief health officer Dr Jeanette Young (who by the way is demanding that we fluoridate our water) to knick off, you are not going to tell us what to do with our water. Apparently only two of the 10 councilers are in favor of fluoridation, but will not support it because of the ongoing costs to the local council.

The Mayor has arranged a public debate for Jan 30, but so far Dr Young and the pro-fluoride lobby are refusing to show up, rather they organised a seperate pro-fluoridation meeting a week or so ago, where they could have their say without any 'credible' counter information being discussed. They are on record as saying the science is black and white and the noisy minority who dissagree are seriously miss-informed... and that's just the tame end of the abuse critics have got from Qld health and the pro-fluoridation lobby.

I see a similar story developing on the Gold Coast where the push to get rid of fluoridation since the LNP won office and gave them the option to opt out of the filthy excuse for healthier teeth.

C'mon people, it's time to have a closer look at the inaccurate and sometimes plain untruthful 'advertising' the pro-fluoridation lobby are peddling.

 

[pixel]

I would start by differentiating this thread "Fluoridation" from the previous "Fluoride" thread, in the sense that I accept there may be some benefit in fluoride products like tooth paste for some people if they choose to use them, but having our health bureaucrats demand we put filthy contaminated fluoride by-products in our drinking water is quite another.

From what I'm hearing at least two councils in the Burnett region have decided to turn off or not connect to fluoridation.

Bundaberg has dug it's heels in and told the Qld chief health officer Dr Jeanette Young (who by the way is demanding that we fluoridate our water) to knick off, you are not going to tell us what to do with our water. Apparently only two of the 10 councilers are in favor of fluoridation, but will not support it because of the ongoing costs to the local council.

The Mayor has arranged a public debate for Jan 30, but so far Dr Young and the pro-fluoride lobby are refusing to show up, rather they organised a seperate pro-fluoridation meeting a week or so ago, where they could have their say without any 'credible' counter information being discussed. They are on record as saying the science is black and white and the noisy minority who dissagree are seriously miss-informed... and that's just the tame end of the abuse critics have got from Qld health and the pro-fluoridation lobby.

I see a similar story developing on the Gold Coast where the push to get rid of fluoridation since the LNP won office and gave them the option to opt out of the filthy excuse for healthier teeth.

C'mon people, it's time to have a closer look at the inaccurate and sometimes plain untruthful 'advertising' the pro-fluoridation lobby are peddling.

When my hometown started to add fluorides to the scheme water, I started giving birth to kidney stones.

Then we moved to Bunbury, and the affliction stopped. ... until our Gov'mint forced the City of Bunbury to do as they were told.
Connecting the dots, I bought a water filter that takes out the crap. That was 24 years ago.

My last kidney colic was 24 years ago.

 

[Whiskers]

When my hometown started to add fluorides to the scheme water, I started giving birth to kidney stones.

Then we moved to Bunbury, and the affliction stopped. ... until our Gov'mint forced the City of Bunbury to do as they were told.
Connecting the dots, I bought a water filter that takes out the crap. That was 24 years ago.

My last kidney colic was 24 years ago.

But, according to so called 'credible research' these side effects and others can't be caused by fluoridation of water.

It's infuriating that you had to be a casualty for the so called 'greater good' from a health effect and financially.

 

[Calliope]

But, according to so called 'credible research' these side effects and others can't be caused by fluoridation of water.

It's infuriating that you had to be a casualty for the so called 'greater good' from a health effect and financially.

This debate has whiskers on it.

 

[waza1960]

This debate has whiskers on it.

+1 :screwy:

 

[pixel]

This debate has whiskers on it.

"Meeoww!"
Doctors, whom I tell this, find it "interesting"; but so far, nobody has been willing to comment any further, let alone take it a step further and initiate some research.

Of course, it is well known where the interest in mass pollution originated:
If the steelmakers and other users of hydrofluoric acid had to dispose of the waste products safely, they'd have lots of costs and environmental responsibility coming their way. Thinning it out and spreading the salts across Millions of lawns around the world is a lot more attractive - they even manage to sell the effluent as a profitable by-product.
btw, my dentist doesn't have a problem with me not using fluoridated toothpaste. He was happy to replace it with a casein-based product.

 

[Whiskers]

Qld Health, or at least Dr Young and her staunch pro-fluoridation colleagues, are guilty of blatant misrepresentation and bias in promoting fluoridation. This is how they promote and explain fluoride to be used in fluoridation in their website and literature.

Q: What is fluoride?
A: Fluoride is a naturally occurring compound found
in water, plants, rocks, soil, air and most foods.​

Well, the main point should be it is not desireable in uncontrolled amounts in water, air or food. It's called contamination.

The other big point is that they don't acknowledge the distinction between natural fluoride and chemically produced fluoride pollutants that have escaped into the environment, expressly implying that all fluorides are "natural" diminishing the toxic effect of especially synthetic fluoride compounds and their contaminants.

Q: Where does it come from?
A: The fluoride used for water fluoridation can be extracted
at the same time as other minerals, such as phosphates
from ground rocks. The co-production of natural fluoride
through an already established mining process is an
efficient use of our natural resources.​

While they acknowledge the fluoride allowed for fluoridation is sourced from industrial plants, they don't;

1. distinguish this industrial grade fluoride containing impurities typically mainly cadmium, lead and arsenic from pharmaceutical grade fluoride used in toothpaste etc, and
3. misrepresent a hazadous chemically complex by-product containing other deadly accumulative toxins as "natural" fluoride.

Under the Qld Water Fluoridation Act 2008, section 5, the forms of fluoride that can be used are;

(a) sodium fluoride (NaF);
(b) sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6);
(c) fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6);
(d) naturally occurring fluoride contained in a source of
water in which the concentration of fluoride is higher
than the prescribed concentration for the water supply
under section 6(2).​

Further, under the Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008, section 14 deals with "Impurities in fluoride"

Interestingly it doesn't ban any impurities but says at (2);

The public potable water supplier must not add the fluoride to
the water supply if the batch analysis certificate for the
quantity of fluoride indicates the concentration of impurities
in the fluoride is likely to adversely affect public health.​

How do you like that rather subjective qualification in the context that the operator has complete legal indemnity?

The other point is the use of the term "Batch analysis" certificate. This may vary greatly from individual containers and even the average of the batch if the test sample was poorly taken.

 

[Calliope]

"Meeoww!"
Doctors, whom I tell this, find it "interesting"; but so far, nobody has been willing to comment any further, let alone take it a step further and initiate some research.

The Fluoride Thread has been running for nearly six years and I doubt if anyone has changed sides. After dominating that thread with his verbiage I very much doubt that Whiskers has anything new to add to justify his obsession. But that hasn't stopped him in the past.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

A few truths on the Fluoride Debate.

I think it's a good additive and believe the Dentists and Doctors on it by the way, but this is about the debate.

So on the Debate.

1. Most folk against Fluoride operate on the fringes of their professions.

2. Many are doctors' wives or people with other strange beliefs with bugger all else to do.

3. I can find nothing against fluoridation by googling major health, dental, public health, medical and scientific journals and the WHO.

4. This post will make absolutely no difference to the belief of believers that it is bad.

gg

 

[Whiskers]

This debate has whiskers on it.

+1 :screwy:

So you guys are happy to blindly accept everything your politicians and health departments tell you?

That would put you in the league of 'blind faith' followers, like those so called experts including many doctors and their medical organisations who smoked and actively promoted smoking for half a decade after the first research showed a link between smoking and all sorts of adverse health effects.

It's worth remembering the so called medical experts and regulators, took the word of the manufacturer of Asbestos, Thalidomide, DDT, Tobacco companies and many others before they were proven to have either hidden the true research or hadn't carried out proper research.

Remember, it took a few decades to reveal the truth about asbestos... more than half a century after the research showed adverse medical effects to get to where we are today with tobacco.

A common theme proven of asbestos, tobacco and many others is the infiltration of the regulatory systems by lobby groups of industry to dishonestly promote and or corruptly endorse their product.

Are you guys suggesting the fluoride industry and it's lobbyists are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?

 

[Whiskers]

A few truths on the Fluoride Debate.

I think it's a good additive and believe the Dentists and Doctors on it by the way, but this is about the debate.

I'm dissapointed in you gg! :

You completely trust the medical professions!?

Maybe I should mention a few words like 'medical fraud', 'medical overservicing', corruption, selfrightious/selfinterest health bureaucrats, that go hand in hand with the health industry.

 

[banco]

I'm dissapointed in you gg! :

You completely trust the medical professions!?

Maybe I should mention a few words like 'medical fraud', 'medical overservicing', corruption, selfrightious/selfinterest health bureaucrats, that go hand in hand with the health industry.

I trust the medical profession more than I trust some Queensland yokels.

 

[Calliope]

Are you guys suggesting the fluoride industry and it's lobbyists are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?

Why should you care? What's your agenda? How do we know that you "are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?"

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

So you guys are happy to blindly accept everything your politicians and health departments tell you?

That would put you in the league of 'blind faith' followers, like those so called experts including many doctors and their medical organisations who smoked and actively promoted smoking for half a decade after the first research showed a link between smoking and all sorts of adverse health effects.

It's worth remembering the so called medical experts and regulators, took the word of the manufacturer of Asbestos, Thalidomide, DDT, Tobacco companies and many others before they were proven to have either hidden the true research or hadn't carried out proper research.

Remember, it took a few decades to reveal the truth about asbestos... more than half a century after the research showed adverse medical effects to get to where we are today with tobacco.

A common theme proven of asbestos, tobacco and many others is the infiltration of the regulatory systems by lobby groups of industry to dishonestly promote and or corruptly endorse their product.

Are you guys suggesting the fluoride industry and it's lobbyists are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?

I'm dissapointed in you gg! :

You completely trust the medical professions!?

Maybe I should mention a few words like 'medical fraud', 'medical overservicing', corruption, selfrightious/selfinterest health bureaucrats, that go hand in hand with the health industry.

You make some good points.

However as a lad in the 60's I can remember a doctor's wife in our suburb making a huge hullabaloo about fluoride, she was as mad as a cut snake, but influential.

Fifty years later i don't see people with good teeth walking about with an extra arm or leg.

And the places where fluoride has been introduced have less dental caries.

I will not reply further in this thread, as it annoys me.

Give your retort and bugger off.

gg

 

[medicowallet]

I'm dissapointed in you gg! :

You completely trust the medical professions!?

Maybe I should mention a few words like 'medical fraud', 'medical overservicing', corruption, selfrightious/selfinterest health bureaucrats, that go hand in hand with the health industry.

I find this kind of comment distasteful and insulting.

If you seriously believe this rubbish you peddle about fluoridation, I pity your understanding of reality.


Give me one good reason as to why the medical profession would want to harm people with fluoride.

Why can't anyone prove that there is major detrimental effects of fluoride to health? Oh, because it is a very effective public health measure where the benefit outweighs the risk. But then again, you will never see any reason wrt cost-benefit analysis, as in black and white fairyland this is not a consideration at all.

I would encourage you to obtain some type of healthcare qualification, but unfortunately I don't think it would help.

MW

 

[boofis]

Give me one good reason as to why the medical profession would want to harm people with fluoride.

Why can't anyone prove that there is major detrimental effects of fluoride to health? Oh, because it is a very effective public health measure where the benefit outweighs the risk.

It's not that they would want to harm people, it's just that they might stand to gain something by not getting in the way.

I err on the side of caution; how can you be so certain of any outcomes over such a prolonged period of time e.g. lifetime LOL, with such a wide range of extraneous variables?

 

[Whiskers]

Why should you care?

As a typical consumer isn't it responsible for us all to have confidence our health professionals and organisations are not being misled, being completely honest and not acting out of some overzealous self righteousness or corruption?

What's your agenda?

Simply to keep our water supplies as clean and pure as possible by eliminating the addition of additional impurities especially fluoride and associated cadmium, lead and arsenic etc into the water supply.

How do we know that you "are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?"

You don't really, except by analysing the points I make. That can't hurt you... unless you have an adgenda against me or are uncomfortable with being shown your long held trust of some powerful medical professionals is ill-founded.

Secondly, I'm not trying to sell or force you to take anything against your will.

Common misconceptions: Your doctor typically doesn't know anymore than you or me whether a product is safe or not. They don't do the research themselves, but typically rely on advice and information from the product manufacturer and their peak medical Authorities. As with Asbestos, thalidomide, DDT, tobacco etc they too were mislead by their peak medical authorities for a long time.

 

[Calliope]

... acting out of some overzealous self righteousness or corruption?

That's you in a nut-shell. Your motives are highly suspect.

 

[Whiskers]

I find this kind of comment distasteful and insulting.

Why... don't you acknowledge there is a fraud, medical overservicing, corruption and selfrightious/selfinterest in the medical fraternity?

If you seriously believe this rubbish you peddle about fluoridation, I pity your understanding of reality.

Before I condem you, I'm happy to discuss which parts you have trouble believing.

Give me one good reason as to why the medical profession would want to harm people with fluoride.

The medical profession generally would not... but as for a minority of influential medical bureaucrats, their sole focus becomes blinded by their corrupt self-interest or irrisponsible overzealous persuit of their career, as was the cases for asbestos, tobacco etc etc.

Why can't anyone prove that there is major detrimental effects of fluoride to health?

Why do detrimental effects have to be major? There are many well documented side effects of fluoridation including fluorosis in 30% or more of people who otherwise would not have had it.

Oh, because it is a very effective public health measure where the benefit outweighs the risk. But then again, you will never see any reason wrt cost-benefit analysis, as in black and white fairyland this is not a consideration at all.

I'm glad you mentioned the cost benifit MW. The Bundaberg Regional Council has published estimates that only .8% of the reticulated water supply is used for drinking. The south Burnett councils which include Blackbutt to Murgon and Kingaroy say most of the houses have tank water for drinking and as such they are opting out of fluoridation like Bundaberg on a cost basis.

A Local Dentist Dr Ingham commented in the Bundaberg News Mail that "the incidence of decay in children's teeth in southern states seemed to be increasing." contrary to the pro-fluoridation campaign claims.

Dr Ingham says "It is speculated this could be associated with many children and adults drinking bottled water instead of fluoridated tap water."

Therein lays the achilles heel of the cost benifit argument for fluoridation. If people don't drink the water it's a total waste of money with no prospect of any claimed health benifit.

I would encourage you to obtain some type of healthcare qualification, but unfortunately I don't think it would help.

I have a basic understanding of science, but as you know from earlier, I have qualifications in accounting and law and behavioural psychology. I'm the analytical and audit nightmare of the "believe me" con artist. :

MW, it's got little to do with medical qualifications and more to do with behaviour than you might imagine. Most people can sense when they ask a simple question and get abuse or change of subject back, that something is not right. That is the downfall of the pro-fluoridation lobby around here. They literally demand we accept and believe everything they say and dismiss everything else as a noisy minority sprouting unreliable rubbish. Yeah... well Bernie Banton, Eddie Mabo, numerous smokers etc etc have heard that before and they have been proven wrong.

 

[Whiskers]

You make some good points.

However as a lad in the 60's I can remember a doctor's wife in our suburb making a huge hullabaloo about fluoride, she was as mad as a cut snake, but influential.

Fifty years later i don't see people with good teeth walking about with an extra arm or leg.

And the places where fluoride has been introduced have less dental caries.

I will not reply further in this thread, as it annoys me.

Give your retort and bugger off.

gg

I'm sorry it annoys you gg, it seems it was a fairly traumatic experience for you as a youngster.