|
CTM
Eclub digest version, December 19th 2003
|
||||
|
Up Close and Personal EClub interviews CTM's founder, Phillip Day, who returned recently with his wife from his tour of Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. ECLUB: Welcome home!
Is the European Union Good at What it
Does? Amid all the arguments about the Euro-constitution, we are forgetting to ask a very basic question: Is the EU good at what it does? Before handing over a new tranche of powers, it is surely sensible to look at what Brussels is doing with the powers it already has. Last week, the Court of Auditors published a report into precisely this. For the ninth year in a row, the auditors found so many flaws in the EU budget that they refused to approve it. This ought to have been massive news in Britain: here, after all, is evidence that the institutions which Tony Blair wants to put in charge of our legal system, our energy reserves and our economy, cannot be trusted to administer themselves. Yet most newspapers failed to mention the report at all, and none gave it prominence. Why are we not more concerned? Partly, I suspect, because we take Euro-sleaze so much for granted that it is no longer newsworthy. Partly, too, because the report was long and difficult. None the less, it ought to matter a great deal: how else can we judge the EU if not by its record? So, on your behalf, I jammed some matchsticks under my eyelids and spent last week doing some concentrated reading. The most striking thing about the document is that it reveals systemic abuse. We are not dealing with isolated cases of human weakness, but with what Lord Macpherson would call institutional corruption. Despite what many British sceptics believe, there is no evidence that racketeering is more common in Southern Europe. Surveys of farms to corroborate the subsidies being claimed, for example, showed as many irregularities in Sweden as in Italy. Across Europe, whenever people know that a pot of money is waiting to be claimed, they organise their affairs around qualifying for it. And because the money comes from Brussels, national authorities have little interest in stopping them. Britain is no different. In my own constituency, I have seen European policies turn good men into liars. I have known farmers and fishermen who, although hating themselves for it, have had to falsify documents to meet Brussels rules. For them, the system has been literally corrupting. The Common Agricultural Policy is famously rotten, of course. But the EU's structural payments, research programmes and foreign aid budgets were also found to be riddled with what the auditors dryly call "errors". In fact, when I totted up all the funds which could not be properly accounted for, I found that they came to nearly 92 per cent of the total budget. Imagine if we ran public companies, or even private societies, on this basis. Picture the treasurer of, say, your local golf club announcing to his AGM that, although he estimated that only eight per cent of the budget had been stolen, it might be anything up to 92 per cent. Would you vote to pass his accounts? Would you want to keep him on as treasurer? You would if you were an MEP. Although there are some honourable exceptions, the European Parliament, as a whole, always baulks at withholding money from the Commission. It does so on two grounds. The first has to do with glasshouses and stones. Euro-MPs are extremely touchy about their own expenses. Indeed, several of them are still on non-speakers with me after my last article, in which I ran through some of the figures. One of my colleagues (I won't reveal his nationality) took particular exception to my remark about MEPs employing their wives and sleeping with their staff. He, it emerged during our altercation, did both, and was convinced that I had conceived the piece solely as an attack on him. Even MEPs whose personal finances are immaculate are
reluctant to kick up a fuss about fraud, for fear that it will put their
constituents off the EU. For many of them, European integration is an
end in itself: they would rather see a policy mismanaged by Brussels than
competently administered by national governments. It is, of course, precisely
this attitude which encourages much of the wrongdoing in the first place.
Thus the cycle goes on. Further Resources
PM Axes Plans to Join Euro Tony Blair will, this week, kill off any prospect of Britain joining the euro for SIX years. The Prime Minister has been forced to scrap plans to include a Bill for a referendum on the issue in the Queen's Speech. He was compelled to back down after the Treasury warned him the British economy was nowhere near ready to scrap the pound in favour of the single currency. Mr Blair had hoped his euro Bill would have given the government the power to call a referendum on the currency at any time. This is the last major Queen's Speech before the next general election due in 2005, so the government cannot now push ahead until 2006 at the earliest. The process will take more than three years - even if the public vote in favour of the euro. So the currency has no chance of taking over from the Pound until 2009. The most recent assessment by the Treasury shows that Britain's economy is shifting apart from Europe. And Chancellor Gordon Brown has made it clear he would oppose any move to include powers for a euro referendum in the Queen's Speech. In his Mansion House speech in June, he warned: "It is because stability is so fundamental to British economic success that I can assure you there will be no short-cuts and no fudge over the euro entry". Mr Brown will deliver his next assessment on the currency when he gives his pre-Budget report in December. Now the Queen's Speech will be dominated by a tough new Asylum Bill, which will halt payments to asylum seekers as soon as their applications to stay in Britain are rejected. Asylum families will also have their children taken into care, if they refuse to leave the country - with Home Secretary, David Blunkett, arguing that they cannot support them without state aid. Mr Blair has ignored his own back-benchers' demands to include legislation to ban fox-hunting in his speech. But he will include a tough new Bill to crack down on domestic violence. This will include new laws to jail men who breach court orders to stay away from partners they have abused. There will also be a national register of wife-beaters. Moves to reform the House of Lords, give more protection
of children and introduce university tuition fees will also be in the
Speech. PPHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: It looks as if we have been granted a reprieve on the euro. Remember, we may have a few more years to see what the single currency will do to other nations, but the major danger to the UK still remains the EU Constitution which, if signed up to, will effectively gut the UK as an independent, self governing nation. Is this really what the British people want? Further Resources:
War Over EU Tax On Poppies by Nigel Nelson
Charity flag appeals are currently exempt from VAT - but now European Commission officials want to slap up to 17.5p in the pound on the raw materials that go to make the symbols. The money grabbing scheme would cost organisations like the Royal British Legion - which this month sold 33 million poppies worth £22 million - a fortune in lost revenue. But Mr Brown hopes to persuade EU finance ministers to drop the plan. And he is privately making it clear if they don't, he will use the nation's veto to chuck them out. British Legion spokesman, Jeremy Lillies, said: "We expect the Chancellor to use the veto if it comes to it. We are sure the Government won't allow Europe to threaten poppy sales." EU officials are also keen to impose VAT on new buildings used by charities - costing a fortune to move. But a Treasury insider insisted: "The Government has made it clear we will not accept tax harmonisation on any matter." The People 23rd November, 2003
An urgent Call To Action. Please call upon your political representatives to table these documents in Parliament before the right of the community to know what is going on in their government departments is DENIED. "DoCS - Stealing Our Children for Medicine?" I am an Australian medical analyst and writer who released a story about a 12 year old girl who was forced to undergo chemotherapy on the advice of a doctor who based his treatment on a study that some other doctors claimed could not have formed an adequate basis for his prognosis or his forced treatment. The girl's parents were relentlessly pursued through the courts by the (Australian) Department of Community Services (DoCS) which is a child welfare government department. This department used any and every means to cause this child to become a ward of the Court in order for this treatment to be forcibly administered by the doctor and hospital against the wishes of the child and her parents and in the apparent absence of properly presented medical evidence. The family's and child's specific identifying details were de-identified in accordance with Court requirements, and the story was widely circulated in the public interest (with permission). Living Now Magazine published part one of the story and planned to print part two in the December issue. Two days after publication they were pressured by DoCS threatening legal action if the magazine did not agree to suppress the matter by pulling the story and all future references to it. For further details, Scroll down to read the author's correspondence to the Crown solicitor's office which acts for the department of community services (DoCS). It appears DoCS has taken over the lawful role of the Court by creating, interpreting, administering and enforcing their own "laws". Attached are the original story, the update and the letter from the author to the Crown Solicitor's Office (the legal representative of DoCS). Many in the community, including the family are disturbed by these developments which appear to be DoCS attempts to protect itself from public accountability and legal liability for its actions. This author is usually focused on writing and does not normally call for community action, however it appears necessary if this family's rights are to be upheld along with and the right to freedom of speech and the right of the community to know what is going on in the area of health and in our government departments. The minister for DoCS, Carmel Tebbutt, has not replied to any correspondence regarding this matter. Feedback is welcome to ............................................................................... __________________________________________________________________ The letter below was written on November 17, 2003 and served on the Crown Solicitors office by registered mail no: RD 49422008 posted 17/11/03 Attention:
Dear Miss Shirm, On 14th November 2003, I received a faxed copy of your letter to Ms. Elizabeth Stephens, Editor of Living Now magazine referring to my article, "DoCS - Stealing Our Children for Medicine?" Ms. Stephens published part one in her recent November issue with part two set to run in the December issue which is now I understand being typeset. I am the author of that article. In accordance with court orders I have de-identified personal and family names and other details and used the pseudonym "Lisa" for the child. (DoCS have used another pseudonym "Heather" for the child.) I understand you are acting for the interests of the Department of Community Services. In your letter you allege my article reveals the child's identity and you claim it contains "various inaccuracies". Pursuant to these allegations you threaten the editor with court action if she does not give you a written assurance to suppress part two of this story in print and remove it from the magazine's website. I understand this would incur considerable cost to the magazine. My article is an exposé of the Department of Community Services (DoCS) which took drastic action to force an 11-year-old girl, "Lisa", to undergo chemotherapy against her will and against the wishes of her parents. This was carried out on the medical advice of Doctor Alvaro who based his prognosis and chemotherapy treatment on a UK study he insisted supported his claims. The doctor told the parents and later told the Supreme Court of NSW that the child had an 85% probability of a "cure" with his recommended chemotherapy when the study he based this on showed this figure to represent only a five year survival rate. The doctor claimed the child had no chance of survival without his chemotherapy, but according to other expert opinions, the UK study had no control group to support this claim. The family asked doctor Alvaro to supply them with supporting medical evidence, which he refused. Your client, DoCS continued to pursue the parents through the Court until their daughter was made a ward of the Court and the chemo was forcibly administered. The family continued to request proof of the medical evidence to support this forced treatment. Their family doctor and two other doctors subsequently reviewed the UK study and disagreed with the forced treatment, finding no adequate basis for it in the study. One doctor asked the court to seek independent medical opinions. Despite being made aware of these reasonable doubts, your client, DoCS, continued to pursue the parents through the court in a concerted action to deprive them of their parental rights. As you are aware, the child and her family had a number of their rights reinstated by His Honour, Judge Campbell at their most recent court appearance. I wrote the article using the available information at the time. I checked my sources for accuracy and found the information correct to the best of my knowledge at the time of writing. I was in full awareness of the court orders stating; "no publication that would identify or tend to identify the child the subject of these proceedings or her family occur except for the purpose of the proper conduct of the proceedings." Respectful of the court orders and the sensibilities of the child and her family, I de-identified the personal family's details in accordance with the US de-identification standard and the privacy standards set down by the Privacy Act and the APC Privacy standards. The details of the case were obtained by fair and honest means from the relevant legal and medical documents and interviews and transcripts. Other information sources included the Supreme Court's own website listing this case with considerable medical and legal detail including the actual names of most doctors involved and treatment locations. This information is in the public domain for the purpose of serving the public interest as are other court judgements available for the rightful purpose of public scrutiny. The story of how an Australian government department did all things necessary to force a now 12-year-old girl to undergo a series of potentially fatal chemotherapy treatments, purportedly without adequate medical evidence, would appear to be a matter of significant public interest. Particularly since the forced treatment was contrary to other medical opinions and was administered in spite of the child's and the parents' opposition. The trauma caused to this family and others by the way in which "health care" has been forcibly applied without informed consent, through a government department, is a matter capable of affecting people at large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about what is going on, or what may happen to them and others. It is in fact the duty of the media to inform the public of these matters of public interest, as the Privacy Act itself acknowledges. Indeed this story was reviewed by a solicitor prior to its release to ensure it complied with all necessary orders and requirements. In addition, the document; "DoCS-Stealing our children For Medicine" was tendered to the Supreme Court and to your client, DoCS, and to all other relevant parties as an attachment to an affidavit dated 1/9/03. DoCS has had ample time to dispute its veracity, accuracy or relevance. It has been in the public domain for several months. It is not clear why your client demands this story be suppressed by this particular publication. I have received no notice from DoCS with respect to the issues they raise, when they have had the means to contact me since September 1, 2003 by way of my email address clearly printed on my article. It appears self evident that no reader would be able to know the name of the girl or her family unless the family chose to disclose this. Because your client purports to act in the child's interests, I require evidence that your demand for the suppression of this story would serve the child's interest, the family's or the community's interests. I note that no relevant family members have complained about the issues you raise purportedly on their behalf. They have checked my article for accuracy and found it correct to the best of their knowledge. Far from protecting the family's interests or the public interest, your actions would appear to ensure the department of community services is protected from legitimate and rightful public scrutiny. Your demand to stop the press within a few days, without showing just cause, and without giving the magazine sufficient time for recourse, and without service, cannot be a lawfully binding restraint. To give in to DoCS demands would be certain to incur heavy expenses for the magazine. This would be liable to cause wrongful damage to my integrity and reputation as a writer who relies on publications to publish my works. This I suspect is intended by your client, DoCS. I reserve the right to continue my occupation unimpeded, to report matters that are in the public interest without suffering intimidation, without those around me suffering intimidation or incurring expenses or damages arising from unfounded allegations. Pursuant to the aforesaid facts, you are hereby required to produce proof of alleged inaccuracies and give just cause why this article should be excluded from the public interest, within 14 days. Failure to do this shall be taken that no inaccuracies or other impediments exist and the matter is at an end. Should your client pursue further unfounded actions preventing me from pursuing lawful activities, I will seek orders to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding in a frivolous and vexatious manner. Sincerely, Eve Hillary (Signed)
Danger on Tap The report that manufacturers of infant formula present their products as similar to breast milk is disturbing ('Half of all mothers turn to the bottle after six months', 23/11). Commercial formulas cannot come close to replicating the complex mix of oils and immunity-promoting nutritional factors in breast milk. And there is another serious problem with formula feeding. Neither manufacturers nor health authorities give sufficient warnings that formula must not be made with fluoridated tap water. Tap water in big cities contains added fluoride chemicals, quite toxic to very young infants. Formula made with it contains 100 times more fluoride than nature intended (and than found in breast milk). The human breast furiously filters out fluoride till almost none remains, for a very good reason: infants up to about six years have a poorly developed ability to excrete or detoxify the noxious fluoride. Fluoride is a registered poison, listed as similar in toxicity to arsenic and lead. It is well documented scientifically that fluoride is harmful to bone development and the nervous system in adults. The risk is far greater to children. Formula should display large warnings about using fluoridated
tap water. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: David McCrae is a tireless
opponent of fluoridation and, along with his team, triumphed over the
City of Geelong (an hour west of Melbourne) to have the practice thrown
out. For those wishing to join the Australian Fluoridation Information
Network (for free) and become active in ridding Australia of this destructive,
toxic and unnecessary practice, please contact Ailsa Boyden on boydens@mrbean.net.au
Death by Medicine
The New American Food System Per www.mercola.com
Demolished: The Myth That Allows Drugs
Giants to Sell More For years, the drugs industry has grown fat on a myth - the false belief that all drugs will work on just about everybody. That has essentially been the rationale for a culture that has encouraged doctors to prescribe first and ask questions later - at a cost to the NHS of £7.2bn a year in medicines. Yet it has been an open secret within the drugs industry that most drugs do not work for most patients, a secret that has now been publicly aired for the first time by Allen Roses, the head of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline, Britain's biggest drugs company. Dr Roses, an academic with a distinguished record in medical genetics, is used to speaking his mind, especially on the benefits of a revolutionary new approach to drug development called pharmacogenomics. That is the science of applying the results of the human genome project to drug development. In essence, it means testing the DNA of patients in order to identify those for whom a particular drug will work - the "responders". That would enable doctors to eliminate the "non responders" who, as a result, will at least not be given a drug that at best could be useless and at worst dangerous in terms of harmful side-effects. In the past, drug companies have developed drugs aimed at the widest possible population. That was the most profitable strategy but one that ignored a basic fact in biology - people are different. To emphasise the point, Dr Roses likes to quote Sir William Osler, a Canadian physician who in 1892 remarked: "If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art." Bringing a new drug to market is an expensive business costing tens of millions of pounds. It takes place in a culture of maximum possible sales for maximum possible profit - a culture that does not like to broadcast the fact that most drugs don't work for most people. Drug testing in patients involves three phases of increasingly complex clinical trials that must be successfully completed before the drug is approved by regulatory authorities such as the mighty US Food and Drug Administration. But even when a drug has been approved in terms of safety and "efficacy" - whether it does what the label says it should do - few people realise just how poorly they perform in real life. Dr Roses cited a study published three years ago by Brian Spear, a senior scientist at Abbott Laboratories, a medical diagnostics company in Chicago, on the efficacy rates of a range of different drugs. It found that drugs vary enormously in terms of how well they work, with efficacy rates varying from as low as 25 per cent for cancer drugs to 80 per cent for painkillers. For many drugs, however, the efficacy rates hover around 50 per cent or lower, meaning that, for most people, these drugs just don't work. As Dr Roses puts it: "The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people." Dr Roses is one of the pioneers in a field of genetics that promises to help to identify those people who could benefit from a drug. It is called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and it is a way of distinguishing the smallest possible genetic differences between individuals. The use of SNPs has already led to the discovery, for instance, of a test to detect the 5 per cent of the population who inherit a predisposition to a potentially fatal side effect of an anti-HIV drug called abacavir. Now it is possible to test HIV patients before the drug is given to them in order to weed out those patients who will suffer a severe adverse reaction - a violent rash on the body. Scientists believe that SNPs can be used to test people not just for their vulnerability to a drug's side-effects, but also to whether it will work or not. John Bell, the regius professor medicine at Oxford University, said that for pharmacogenomics to catch on, doctors will have to learn new ways of dealing with patients. "One of the biggest obstacles is culture. We've all been taught to take the dose for a drug straight out of the British National Formulae and then if that doesn't work to add another drug to the prescription, and so on," Professor Bell said. "So we can end up with lots of patients on four or more drugs where only one would do. This is a big cultural issue to overcome," he said. Apart from the ethics of prescribing useless drugs to people who could be poisoned by them, there is also the question of costs to the NHS, which has seen a record 50 per cent increase in its drugs bill over the past three years. As Bill Clarke, the executive vice president of research at Amersham, a British diagnostics company, said: "It's just not right to spend that amount of money on drugs that don't work." For the sake of a relatively cheap genetics test that can be carried out on the wider population of patients, it would be possible to target drugs more effectively and more safely, Dr Clarke said. It could also lead to a revolution in the way drugs are tested, he said. If "responders" to a new drug can be identified easily, it will be possible to simplify the expensive phase 3 clinical trials which can involve thousand of people being followed over many years. Dr Roses agreed: "You can pick out people who respond a lot to the drug, can you pick out people who do not respond at all to the drug and can you pick out people who are sort of in the middle. By eliminating the people that we predict will be non-responders we'll be able to do smaller, faster and cheaper drug trials." That could be the incentive that will lead to a change in the "one-drug-fits-all" culture of the drug industry, he said. "I can't speak for other companies but I can tell you absolutely for sure that there is a change in the culture of GSK," Dr Roses said. And the advent of pharmacogenomics will not necessarily mean a fall in sales. "If you can determine who is going to have a response [to a drug] and who is not going to have a response, you can take your next molecule and aim it specifically at the people who haven't had a response with the first one so that you can create a set of drugs that cover the population, and then you are back to selling to everybody," he said. Trial approach PHASE I: These first studies evaluate how a new drug or therapy should be given (by mouth, injection into the blood or injection into the muscle), how often, and what dose is safe. A phase I trial usually enrols a small number of patients, sometimes as few as a dozen. PHASE II: A phase II trial usually focuses on one type of illness, continuing to test the safety of treatment and beginning to evaluate how well it works. This is the essential intermediate step that will determine whether the drug will go into bigger and more costly phase III trials. PHASE III: These studies test a new drug, a new combination
of drugs or a new therapy in comparison to the current standard treatment.
A participant will usually be assigned to the standard group or the new
group at random (called randomisation). Often it involves "double
blind" trials, where neither the patient nor doctor knows who
is being given the new drug. Phase III trials often enrol large numbers
of people and may be conducted at many doctors' offices, clinics and cancer
centres nationwide. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Consider what a disaster
drug medicine has been for most health complaints to which it is applied.
Then consider the level of death attributable to the toxic/harmful effects
of drugs, which kill hundreds of thousands every year around the world,
even though they have supposedly been put through official drug regulation.
And lastly consider that these same drug regulators are to pronounce their
verdicts on hundreds of safe food supplements the public has used for
decades with no ill-effects. Further Resources:
'Fart Tax' Causes a Stink A tax on farting, belching livestock to be introduced by New Zealand to help combat global warming is creating a stink among the country's farmers. Methane emissions created by grass-munching cows, sheep, deer and goats are believed to account for about half of New Zealand's emissions of greenhouse gases. Now the country is attempting to clear the air by introducing a levy on pungent emissions by mid-2004. The tax will fund a new Agriculture Emissions Research body to meet commitments to the Kyoto Protocol global environment agreement. Farmers are outraged But farmers are outraged, saying the agricultural sector is already paying for its own research. The new tax, which will bring in around eight million NZ dollars a year (US$4.5-million) amounted to "overkill", said Jeff Grant, chairman of Meat New Zealand, a livestock industry support organisation. Tom Lambie, president of agricultural body Federated Farmers, said the levy disadvantaged farmers struggling to compete against less gas-anxious nations. "As far as I'm aware, we're the only country in the world to impose a levy like this," he said. NZ farmers facing hard times Jim Eagles, business editor of the New Zealand Herald daily called the levy "unnecessary, unfair and potentially damaging to the economy." New Zealand's farmers are already facing hard times due to a sharp downturn in returns for their produce. Eagle said factories from industrialised nations, not herds of cattle and sheep, were the main cause behind the increase in global warming, he said. New Zealand is home to around 45 million sheep and
9.6 million cattle, according to Statistics New Zealand. Fart Tax Gone, Farmers Celebrate Farmers are welcoming the government's decision to abandon its plan to levy farmers for emissions research. Government ministers said they had agreed to a research programme sufficient to remove the need for a statutory levy on individual sheep, cattle and deer. Federated Farmers of New Zealand vice-president Charlie Pedersen says the farming community has fought hard in recent months - staging FART-tax rallies and assembling a petition with 65,000 signatures - to show government that the emissions charge was a ridiculous burden. "Farmers will be relieved that the government looks to have finally got the FART tax out of its system," Pedersen says. He says farmers pay $77 million a year in voluntary levies, much of which funds a wide range of research benefiting not only farmers but all New Zealanders. Research delivers productivity gains, which in turn benefit the environment. Farmers said they would not pay the tax and only support research that made sense. As such abandoning the FART tax is a fantastic victory for farmers. However, Pedersen warns that although farmers have
won a battle against ridiculous taxes, it had not won the regulatory war
over greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon tax and other "way-out"
ideas still loom as threats to the farming community, he says.
Fluoride - Take Action Now Following my recent tour of these two spectacular countries, I have been saddened at the extent to which the public still remains ignorant of the dangers of water fluoridation. No-one wants dental cavities, and these can easily be avoided by cutting out sugar consumption and modifying diet to cut down or avoid those foods that break down into sugars, e.g. bread, pasta, sweets, bakery delights, etc. In the meantime, we have a war with fluoridation to fight. If you are unaware of the fluoridation issue, or have so far believed that fluoridation in toothpaste, tablets or the public water supply is beneficial to your health, please read my 'Water Under the Bridge' article, extracted from my book, Health Wars, in this EClub edition. Want to become involved? Below are two excellent organisations which I suggest all Australian/New Zealand citizens contact and support to bring the truth of this revolting practice to the prominence it deserves. AUSTRALIA: NEW ZEALAND: GLOBAL:
Fluoride - Help Needed in Queensland Now! AFIN BULLETIN # 36
AMA QUEENSLAND'S UNSCIENTIFIC STAND IN SUPPORTING FLUORIDATION EMBARRASSES ONE OF ITS OWN MEMBERS. AMA [Q'ld] has thrown its weight behind a drive to see all of Queensland's municipal water supplies fluoridated, helped by Kirsten MacGregor of ABC Radio 612 who gave brief coverage on her program two days ago which was seemingly supportive of fluoridation. One AMA [Q'ld] member was embarrassed by his own medical organization's unscientific stand in supporting a renewed drive to fluoridate; especially in view of the previously-conducted Brisbane Task Force which found fluoridation was not in the people's best interests. This AMA member is persuaded by the research that fluoridation is mass medication, ethically unacceptable [hence essentially unnecessary] and endangers the cosmetic and long-term health of all who consume it. To help counter this fluoridation initiative and the anecdotal approach so often used [and used then] by talkback radio, this AMA member used a more scholarly approach when he contacted Kirsten: he emailed a copy of Paul Connett's "50 Reasons to oppose fluoridation". Please consider writing to Kirsten MacGregor care of radio.612@abc.nt.au to acquaint her with some of the realities about fluoridation. Carbon-copying to her station manager might also prove fruitful in the long term. Don't forget FAN's www.fluoridealert.org web site for masses of valuable resource information as well as www.slweb.org/bibliography.html for abstracts from peer-reviewed and published fluoride studies. Ailsa Boyden
From: A Free Supper and the Surgeons
Are Anyone's At this week's surgical meeting, we were subjected to a 15-minute barrage of cleverly altered statistics by an obsequious drug rep, all white teeth, fake tan and hair gel. The new drug he was peddling was twice as expensive as the current one and, when you look closely at the evidence, can't even be proved to be as effective. The research is funded by the drug company. Hardly objective. It is somewhat suspicious, too, that this new drug has arrived just as the patent's run out on the company's current big earner. But no one seemed to feel this worthy of note. The company is also paying for my consultant and some of the other surgeons to have dinner at a swanky restaurant where minor celebrities hang out. If we had wanted to work in an area where we got free stuff, we should have got a job in PR. Ultimately, it's taxpayers' money we're spending and if the drug companies have so much cash to flash, why not subsidise medicines for the poorer companies? I decided to skip the free sandwiches. We admitted Miss Miller a few days ago with recurrent stomach pains, but decided to wait and see if the pains receded on their own, which they did. "I think it's down to my new homoeopath," says Miss Miller during the ward round, just before we discharge her. Several of the assembled doctors suppress chuckles, but Mr Butterworth guffaws in her face. "He says it's because of all the wheat we eat these days," she says, anxious to explain. "Our bodies aren't designed for it. But he's given me a new supplement, which I've been taking since I've been in here, and it's worked wonders." As far as Miss Miller is concerned she came in with stomach pains, we didn't do anything for her, but she started taking her homeopathic medicine and she got better. Who am I to say it wasn't down to homoeopathy? Mr Butterworth isn't convinced: "New-age rubbish. No, these things just get better on their own, given time. Homoeopathy. Huh! No reliable evidence that it works at all." The other surgeons smile in agreement and walk off, shaking their heads. "I think it works," whispers Miss Miller to me. "Well if it makes you feel better, there's no harm in it," I reply, and run to catch them up. I'm just in time to catch the instructions for the next patient and Mr Butterworth, apparently no longer concerned about reliable evidence, prescribes the new drug we learnt about at lunch time. The ward round ends and, as I fill out the blood forms for the next day, Miss Miller appears. "I bought you and the nurses these," she says, producing a box of biscuits. I thank her, and having refused the drug rep's sandwiches, I polish off the Jammy Dodgers before you can say "Holland and Barrett". I'd like to think I prescribe medicines sensibly and
not because someone has paid for my lunch. I'd like to think I wouldn't
allow myself to be bought by a transnational company on the promise of
supper at Dale Winton's favourite restaurant. But I'm still only a junior
doctor, so we'll have to wait and see.
Protesters Topple Mobile Phone Activists have begun tearing down mobile-phone masts around the country, as public concern over the health impact of the radiation they emit continues to grow. The destruction of the masts - as many as four in a single week - signals a dramatic stepping up of the campaign to stop them being placed on top of, or close to, people's houses. Earlier this month, masts were brought down at Wishaw and Dudley in the West Midlands, Crosby in Merseyside and Tiverton in Devon. At least four have also been brought down in Northern Ireland in recent months. Although government advisors say there is no evidence that the masts threaten people's health, those living near them have complained of illnesses ranging from cancer to motor neurone disease. Some scientific studies have suggested that the radiation produced by the aerials has an impact on sleeping patterns and could have health implications. Lisa Oldham, the director of Mast Sanity, a group that campaigns against the masts being sited close to communities, said, "We don't condone the use of criminal acts to bring down the masts, but this does suggest the level of protest against them. We are swamped with people protesting about them. There are thousands of groups trying to get masts moved or trying to prevent new ones being placed near their homes." At Wishaw, a village near Sutton Coldfield, a 74 ft mobile mast was pulled down in the early hours of November 6th by a protester using a rope and haulage equipment. The mast, which was put up 10 years ago on a narrow patch of land between a field and a livery yard, has been blamed for causing a cluster of cancers in the area. Among those living in the 18 houses within a 500-yard radius of the mast there are 20 cases of serious illness, including cancers of the breast, prostate, bladder and lung. One man is dying of motor neurone disease. Many of the people affected are in their thirties or forties. Since the mast was toppled, residents have refused to let the network provider, T-Mobile, replace it and the situation has now developed into an uneasy standoff. Eileen O'Connor, who lives within 300 yards of where the mast used to stand, had breast cancer two years ago at the age of 38. She noticed that many of her neighbours were attending her hospital with similar problems and set up Sutton Coldfield Residents Against Masts (SCRAM). "We have absolutely no idea who took the mast down, and obviously it was a dangerous and inadvisable thing to do," said Mrs O'Connor, who runs an Internet advertising business. She and her children, who also suffered ill-effects, sleep under copper-mesh "mosquito nets" in an effort to deflect any mobile phone radiation. "The first I knew about it was when I looked out of my window in the morning and couldn't see the mast. Apparently the company said they lost the signal at 12.30 am. Someone had unbolted the mast and pulled it over using a rope." Clare Villanueva, a solicitor and SCRAM campaigner in Wishaw, has written to Crown Castle, the company that owns the land on which the mast stood, saying that it cannot legally gain access to the site to replace the mast because its path crosses someone else's land. Residents are now carrying out a 24-hour vigil to ensure that a new mast is not set up, and both sides are paying for security guards to patrol the borders of the land. The locals have suggested an alternative location away from habitation for T-Mobile to use, but this has been rejected by the company. A spokesman for T-Mobile said that the police had been called to investigate. "It defies belief that nobody in Wishaw noticed when the mast was coming down," he said. A spokesman for the Mobile Operators' Association, which represents the five network providers on health and planning issues, said that all its members operated within accepted World Health Organisation guidelines for radiation emissions and there was no proof that masts caused health problems. She added, "The number of masts being brought
down is very small in the overall scheme of things. However, it is certainly
worrying that people are taking direct action, because they could seriously
hurt or even kill themselves."
Vandals have pulled down a mobile phone mast in Worcestershire - the second in the Midlands in recent months. The mast's owners, mobile phone company 02, say the vandals have caused thousands of pounds of damage and mobile users have suffered a reduction in the service as a result. They believe the attackers broke through an unsecured fence before pushing over the structure. The 45ft high tower at Hampton near Evesham was toppled over after supporting bolts were unscrewed. REVIEWING SECURITY Last month a controversial mobile phone mast in the West Midlands, which was blamed by locals for a cluster of health scares, was pulled down. The mast at Wishaw, near Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, fell down on Bonfire Night, again after bolts were removed from the base. Residents have now bought the mast from a scrap yard
and plan to sell parts of it off as souvenirs.
Annette King's Brown-Shirt Conference Your right to pure water is under serious threat from covert work by the Minister of Health and District Health Boards. Annette King's speech can be accessed in full at Fluoride Action Network (NZ)'s website www.fannz.org.nz. As part of the ongoing attack on our water supply and civil rights, NZ's leading fluoridation zealot, the Minister of Health, Annette King, has been co-ordinating efforts, unseen by the average New Zealander, to push fluoridation down our throats. This is in spite of mounting evidence of harmful effects, and the damning York Report which found no reliable evidence of benefit, no evidence of social equity promotion, and no proof of safety. King addressed the third NZ "Fluoridation Forum" recently, a secretive conference aimed at "developing tactics to overcome opponents." King lamented that "some things never change". How true. This strategy, of appointing a fluoridation task force, and holding secret meetings, is a repetition of the Ministry's subversive acts of the 1950's. Their 1958 "Fluoridation Symposium" likewise addressed tactics for politically overcoming opponents, with as little regard for the truth as this conference appears to have had. Like the current forum sequence (2001, 2002, 2003), the proceedings were not made public. The 1958 symposium recommended that promoters "avoid fluoridation becoming a public issue", and to "avoid fuss in the community - work quietly in the small community groups" and generate a demand by convincing small groups, then promote these to the council as representing mass public opinion. Promoters of fluoridation were advised not to allow the issue to be discussed in the Press, and above all, to avoid open public debate (a position maintained today). One tactic was to arrange a closed seminar to promote fluoridation to a Council without opportunity for opposing facts or views to be put and to persuade councillors to refer any issues subsequently raised back to the promotional team rather than seeking independent information. King states "[the forum] has developed strategies to counter anti-fluoridation claims". Surely the public has a right to reliable research and facts in making health decisions, not "strategies" to counter claims based on internationally published peer-reviewed research, and a position supported by respected scientists, as acknowledged by the Ministry (OIA response, Dr Colin Tukuitonga, acting Director-General of Health.) King also states "the Ministry continues to fund research into effective strategies for promoting fluoridation" - taxpayers money used against taxpayers for propaganda to promote a misguided, unscientific, unsafe, and unethical practice. King further states that fluoridation is "pivotal" to New Zealand's health strategy. By contrast, the Health Minister of Luxembourg described fluoridation as "a naïve utopia without practical effect" at the time Europe was rejecting fluoridation after 10 year trials had proven no benefit. It is being suggested that, since the public reject fluoridation when given the choice, the decision on fluoridation should be transferred to District Health Boards, who do the Ministry's bidding, rather than local authorities as at present, and as recommended by the Commission of Inquiry in 1957. This is compulsory fluoridation by the back door: government appointees to the DHBs are required to promote fluoridation as part of their employment contract. This same the strategy has recently been adopted in the USA and UK. Another proposed policy is that water authorities who do not fluoridate should be charged for "additional oral healthcare", for which no evidence exists. This would be an unlawful fetter on councils as the statutory decisionmakers. It would also be an interesting court case if a DHB tried to prove the cost, in light of the York Review's finding on the unreliability of any epidemiological study claiming to show benefit. It is also suggested that fluoridation be part of the drinking water standards (again). It was to meet such an organised attack on the truth about fluoridation, and democratic rights, that a national anti-fluoridation movement arose in 1956, and that, in the same situation, Fluoride Action Network (NZ) was formed in early 2003. The amount of research since 1995 proving adverse health effects is considerable, and has been conducted by independent scientists, not beholden to commercial or political interests for grant money. That research includes proof of central nervous system (Mullinex 1995), increased lead uptake due to silicofluorides specifically (Masters & Coplan 1999), accumulation in the pineal gland and resultant inhibition of melatonin production (Luke 1997 & 2001), and evidence of the creation of alzheimer-like amyloids in the brain (Varner 1998) and disruption of the G-protein cell communication mechanism (Strunecka, 2002). The US EPA, a pro-fluoridation body, acknowledged on 25 April 2002 that silicofluorides used for water fluoridation do not have the same effect on the body as "natural" fluoride and that their human health safety has never been tested. What is most important is that we, the people of New Zealand, work together now to safeguard our water, health, and rights from a minority of zealots who think they have a right to force their misguided opinions on the rest of us. FAN(NZ) is here to facilitate and co-ordinate such an effort, and will continue to work until NZ is free from the unconscionable practice of water fluoridation. Reliable information on this subject is available on FAN(NZ)'s and linked websites: www.fannz.org.nz. Mark Atkin BSc(Chem); LLB(Hons) Annette King's speech in full I am delighted to have been invited to speak to this forum yet again, and let me start by saying "some things never change". All round the country there are still communities going over the same old ground, or same old water, as they debate whether to fluoridate their water supplies. (Ed - This is what the Health Department argued for in 1963/64, and the Privy Council gave them what they wanted.) Just in the last few weeks the stories have focused on Winton and the West Coast, while the Christchurch newspapers have been publishing dozens of letters to the editor following the push by the Canterbury District Health Board to have that region's water supply fluoridated. Something else never changes either from one Water Fluoridation Forum to another. As Health Minister I continue to regard fluoridation of water supplies as the most effective means we have at our disposal to improve the dental health of our children, and to prevent our children having to suffer unnecessary pain and health problems. I want to thank you for the enormous amount of work that has been and still is being undertaken around the country to promote and protect water fluoridation. Much of what you do can sometimes occur in quite a difficult and confrontational environment, and that makes your contribution all the more valued. You seem to be bearing up well. I am heartened to see so many familiar faces here, as well as some not so familiar. You embrace a wide range of participants, from New Zealand Dental Association members, dental health therapists and managers, members of the Maori dental organisation, public health services, medical officers of health, communications experts, and other oral health experts from both public and personal health sectors. Thank you all, whatever capacity you are here in. Without your help, my job and the jobs of the Health Ministry and District Health Boards in promoting oral health would be immeasurably more difficult. This forum has progressed remarkably it began in 2001, with that first meeting helping raise awareness particularly about water fluoridation. The second forum expanded awareness by building and fostering a support base, establishing and maintaining networks to support water fluoridation; and providing participants with tools, information and skills to promote and protect fluoridation within their own communities. And now this third forum has expanded again, rather successfully, I'm told. It has developed strategies to counter anti-fluoridation claims; has provided updates on important research and proposed research; and has focused more on the relationship between Maori oral health and water fluoridation, and on the role the promotion of fluoridation plays in reducing oral health inequalities. This forum has also continued the pattern of strengthening networks to support all those involved in promoting water fluoridation. The work being undertaken here and back in your own professional environments is of great importance. Improving the oral health of all New Zealanders is one of the 13 population health objectives in the New Zealand Health Strategy. Controversial though it can be, water fluoridation is pivotal in achieving this objective. Access to accurate and credible information is vitally important given the debate over supposed adverse effects of water fluoridation. Anti-fluoridationists are vociferous, and, understandably, communities and local authorities find themselves in a difficult situation when the information gulf between pro- and anti-fluoridationists is so wide. This forum captures public attention and interest, and provides professional groups, practitioners and communities with factual information about the value of water fluoridation. I do not need to remind this meeting of the enormous wealth of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridating water as an equitable and cost-effective public health measure that can reduce dental decay in children by as much as 50 percent. (Ed - yet the York Review found no reliable evidence of any benefit, and even unreliable studies showed only 15% (1/2 a filling) improvement which the board appropriately described as "hardly massive". Yet promoters continue to repeat the 50 year lie of 50% improvement, which began with the now discredited studies at Grand Rapids and Newburgh (USA) and Hastings (NZ)) As I said earlier, I am confident that promoting fluoridation is based on sound reasoning and overwhelming evidence, and I am also confident that fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve the oral health of New Zealanders of all ages. I also wish to encourage and support the collaborative, consultative approach to the issue of fluoridation where relationships are developed with key stakeholders such as local authorities, DHBs and community health providers. Such relationships help facilitate a more rational basis for debating fluoridation as a community-wide issue. I know such relationships are difficult to maintain and can even be downright frustrating, but it is an approach that works in a number of places around New Zealand and I encourage you all to embrace it. Much still needs to be done to improve oral health. Substantial inequalities are evident in the oral health of our children, with Maori and Pacific children, adolescents and children from low socio-economic status families having a higher prevalence and severity of dental caries than other children. Under-utilisation of dental care by some groups of adolescents is also a concern. These children and adolescents may go on to experience substantial dental problems in adulthood, at personal cost to themselves, the community and the oral health services. Earlier this year, the Public Health Advisory Committee released its report, Improving Child Oral Health and Reducing Child Oral Health Inequalities, on the status of oral health of our children, and provided me with several constructive recommendations. While the report indicated that clear inequalities exist, there is enormous scope to reduce them. For example, school dental service data show that ethnic inequalities in child oral health status are more pronounced in areas that do not receive optimally fluoridated water. (Ed - note that the PHAC is part of the National Health Committee which in turn is part of the Ministry of Health. The report referred to is critiqued on the FAN site.) Water fluoridation has clear benefits for different ethnic groups, and contributes to reducing ethnic inequalities in oral health status. Increased fluoridation of drinking-water supplies, particularly in low socio-economic areas, is crucial to combat oral health deficiencies. As I said, the Committee has provided several recommendations for improving Maori oral health: · To fund evaluation of current Maori oral health
initiatives; These recommendations provide important benchmarks against which to measure the impact of variable water fluoridation coverage on Maori. For example, fluoridated public water supplies are likely only in larger communities and higher proportion of Maori live in non-fluoridated rural areas. The Committee report also noted that the prevalence and severity of child dental caries varied considerably between District Health Board regions, and highlighted the influence of maternal oral health and maternal education levels on child oral health. The prevalence of adult oral health inequalities are strongly correlated to childhood experiences, such as knowledge of dental hygiene and access to dental health services. That is another incentive to ensure that children have the opportunity to learn skills and access services that can improve their oral health for the rest of their lives. At your inaugural forum I said that if fluoridated water was extended to reach 75 percent of New Zealanders, the estimated savings could be as high as $23.5 million per annum, not to mention the prevention of pain and personal costs to individuals. We are still some way off this target, and you, as oral health experts, and central and local government need to work together to ensure our communities are well-informed. At that first forum I also discussed the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited report showing that fluoridating water can be cost effective for a community of 1000 or even lower, and said that the Ministry of Health was investigating the feasibility of subsidies for small communities. As a result of that investigation, the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme was launched in May last year as a way to help meet the costs of setting up fluoridation schemes. In its current form, the Scheme covers 50 percent of the cost of the eligible capital works (on average, approximately $30-40,000), with spending on water fluoridation not exceeding more than 10 percent of the total annual appropriation for the Scheme of $15 million. The scheme will continue to provide an opportunity to increase the number of communities with fluoridated water supplies. The Ministry continues to fund research into effective strategies for promoting fluoridation and monitoring oral health, and I recently received a scoping report that investigated several policy options that stemmed from recommendations made at your previous two forums. These policy options related to: · transferring responsibility for decision-making
from local government to the DHBs; I understand a presentation was made to the forum today on this report, so you will be well aware of the complexities and difficulties of implementing such policies that require goodwill and sustained support from local authorities, DHBs and communities. I will continue to follow up on all these issues with the Ministry of Health. We all know that promoting fluoridation often seems to be an uphill and continual battle, but each year I am reinforced and encouraged by the dedication and determination of oral health experts such as the members of this forum. You should all be proud of your contributions. I thank you again for all you are doing to improve the oral health of our nation, and I remain convinced that many tens of thousands of New Zealanders will have reason to thank you in the future too. PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Annette King, I believe,
has become the Kiwi's public health enemy number one. Notice at no point
in her speech has the issue of diet and sugar been mentioned at all in
relation to preventing dental cavities and improving oral health! All
Ms King seems zealous about is assisting the chemical industry in disposing
of its raw industrial waste fluorosilicates into the public water supplies
of her country, and thus save millions of dollars disposing of this gunk
in a responsible manner. New Zealand's love affair with sugary foods is not
condemned here, neither is the irresponsible food industry's unrestricted
advertising of foods that are known to cause cancer, heart disease and
death. Annette King, the poodle of the chemical and drug
industries, is by the way the same Ms King also spearheading the merging
of Australia and New Zealand's regulatory agencies to enforce severe restrictions
on the licensing and availability of food supplements. Isn't it time you contacted the Fluoridation Action
Network and, through them, put Annette King into the picture in no uncertain
terms about how you feel about mass-medicating and dumbing down the public
without their consent?
Soy Supplements Can Decrease Sexual Behaviour Commercial soy supplements, which are taken by increasing numbers of U.S. women, can decrease the normal sexual behaviour of female rats by up to 70 percent. The rats were given a commercially available supplement in doses similar to those taken by women. Many women take soy supplements for menopause as an alternative to hormone replacement therapy, as the active components in the supplements are oestrogen-like molecules called isoflavones. Previous studies in rats have shown that soy isoflavones
interfere with oestrogen function in rats, which then disrupts some social
and sexual behaviours. Researchers are uncertain whether similar side
effects have been reported among women taking soy supplements, however
they note that it could be difficult to attribute changes in sex drive
to the supplements since the hormonal changes that come during menopause
may also cause such symptoms.
Soybeans are high in natural toxins, also known as antinutrients. This includes a large quantity of inhibitors that deter the enzymes needed for protein digestion. Further, these enzyme inhibitors are not entirely disabled during ordinary cooking. The result is extensive gastric distress and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake, which can result in dangerous pancreatic impairments and cancer. Soybeans contain hemaglutinins, which cause red blood cells to clump together. Soybeans also have growth-depressant substances, and while these substances are reduced in processing, they are not completely eliminated. Soy contains goitrogens, which can frequently lead to depressed thyroid function. Most soybeans are genetically modified, and they contain one of the highest levels of pesticide contamination of all foods. Soybeans are very high in phytates, which prevent the absorption of minerals including calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc, all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in the body. Finally, in an effort to remove antinutrients from soy out of the final product, soybeans are taken through a series of chemical processes including acid washing the soy in aluminium tanks. This leaches high levels of aluminium, a toxic heavy metal, into the final soy products. Many soy foods also have toxic levels of manganese. Soy formula has up to 80 times higher manganese than is found in human breast milk. Fermented soy products like tempeh, natto and miso
and soybean sprouts don't have these problems and can actually be quite
healthy. I recommend that you avoid all non-fermented soy such as tofu,
soy protein products, soymilk and especially soy baby formula, which should
never be used for infants, and only eat fermented soy if you choose to
eat it. Further Resources:
Toxic Cocktail 'Inside All of Us'
PCBs, which are found in electrical equipment, and a breakdown product of the carcinogenic pesticide DDT were found in 99 per cent of those tested. The survey also identified widespread contamination of people by a chemical - deca-brominated dipheyl ether - used to prevent fire in everyday products, such as cars and televisions. "The chemical industry is contaminating the
nation and the Government is rolling over and allowing it to continue,"
said Justin Woolford, a WWF campaigner. FURTHER RESOURCES Health Wars - Phillip Day
Water Under the Bridge by Phillip Day The most pressing three battles we fight as citizens for our good health today are for the right to drink clean, uncontaminated water, to eat clean, uncontaminated food and to breathe clean, uncontaminated air. In our sophisticated Western world today, which allegedly focuses so much on the rights of its citizens, why are these three fundamental, 'unalienable' rights being wilfully trampled? Why, in a society which can do so much technologically for its citizens, can't we address these three fundamentals of life and progress towards good health and longevity, rather than racing away from them? This article deals with the subject of water and fluoridation, and these two deserve their own chapter, simply because of the importance of the subject. Author Harvey Diamond puts it this way: "As an absolute prerequisite to life, water is right up there with food and air. From the moment you are born until you leave this planet, your body instinctively craves food, air and water for your survival. You know what happens to a plant when it is deprived of water. It wilts and dies. The same would happen to your body if it were deprived of water. Its importance is clear." Bringing water to the public is a complicated and responsible business. If you get it wrong, and bacteria afflict the masses, you can definitely lose your pension. Some of the worst scourges mankind has faced have come about as a result of contaminated water supplies, infested with microbes that bring on the feared cholera, typhoid, dysentery and other fatal syndromes that still afflict many Third World nations today. In the past, the bubonic yersinia pestis decimated over a quarter of Europe during the medieval ages with rat-borne contaminants that could easily be passed to others through touching, kissing and other close-quarters contact. Mankind though has largely forgotten the major health disasters it has suffered in the past. Much water, if you'll forgive the pun, has gone under the bridge, and we like to think that problems linked to matters so basic as those concerning water supply are simply gremlins suffered by the less developed nations - not us. This false sense of security we enjoy in the First World though has not prevented governments and water authorities from rising to the challenge of delivering clean, fresh, bug-free water to the public as safely and as cheaply as possible, using some… well, shall we say, quite unique methods. The halogen element chlorine is often added to the public drinking water to kill germs. When I am in the United States, waiters and waitresses will bring me a glass of iced water with my meal, which in many areas is quite undrinkable due to its high chlorine content. Most of the American public has become used to this type of water, and most are prepared to drink it, cook with it, shower with it and wallow around for half an hour in a bath with it. Prolonged chlorine exposure over the years though has been found to desiccate the skin, causing premature wrinkling, dandruff and baldness, and dysbiosis - bacterial/fungal overgrowths in the bowel. Concerns over the long-term effects of bad-tasting chlorinated water fuelled a water filter boom in the early 1990s, which has never ended. For a few dollars, you can obtain a carbon filter that will screw onto the faucet and strip off the chlorine, delivering what the public believes is clean, uncontaminated H2O. But there's another halogen element, which some governments sanction to be put into water supplies, that has caused increasing fear over the past fifty years. Indeed very few public outcries have been as consistent and vigorous as the public's reaction to the fluoridation of water and toothpastes: "Controversy surrounding the fluoridation experiment has persisted for half a century. Japan and all of continental Europe have rejected the idea for reasons of safety and medical ethics. Experiments in poor countries produced such harmful results that they were quickly halted. Why does fluoridation continue to receive vigorous government and professional backing in the English-speaking nations?" - Health Action Network Janet Nagel has authored several studies on the subject and explains how the idea of adding fluoride compounds to the public drinking water supply gained public support through the promotion of this controversial measure by industry and government over sixty years ago: "In the 1940s and 50s, a vigorous corporate and government promotional campaign convinced large numbers of people that fluorides reduced susceptibility to tooth decay. In 1985, over 90% of all toothpastes sold in the US contained high concentrations of intentionally added fluorine compounds. Close to 60% of the US population consumed water containing 1.0 to 4.0 parts per million of fluoride compounds. Nearly all major US cities, and many smaller ones, intentionally add fluorine compounds to their water supplies." So what is 'fluoride' and why exactly is this chemical added to food, water and other products we consume on a daily basis? The term 'fluoride' is often used to describe fluorine-based chemical additives that have been put into the public water supply or into toothpastes and foods. 'Fluoride' tablets are also prescribed to youngsters apparently to assist in the protection and development of their teeth. In repeatedly hearing the one term, 'fluoride', the public has been cleverly coerced into thinking that there is just one substance that has been made available to us by caring government and industry to maintain and promote healthy teeth and gums. The reality is, as we will see, the term 'fluoride' has been found to encompass everything from sodium, calcium and potassium fluorides through to the highly dangerous liquid toxic waste product hexa- (in the US - hydro) -fluorisilicic acid and the toxic powder sodium silicofluoride, both of which are dumped into the public water supply by industry with no detoxification procedures and refinement carried out beforehand. Fluorine is an extremely reactive, electronegative element that is never found alone in nature. Thus there are many kinds of fluorides, such as calcium fluoride, which is found naturally in water, lead fluoride, aluminium fluoride, and so on. The solitary term 'fluoride', so often used, even by activists, is meaningless and misleading as it fails to describe other elements with which the promiscuous fluorine has combined. These other elements often make the difference in toxicity of the resulting compound. Pure fluorine is gaseous and is described as "a non-metallic halogen element that is isolated as a pale yellowish flammable irritating toxic diatomic gas" (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1991). Fluorine was used to great effect as a battlefield gas by the militaries during World War 1. Fluoride compounds today are used in pesticides, aluminium smelting, etching metals and glass, aerosol propellants and refrigerants. Sodium fluoride, the same compound that is added to toothpastes under the admiring eye of the world's dental associations, is a chief component of Sarin nerve gas. It's also the main ingredient in rat poison, as any pest control expert will tell you. The debate surrounding the pros and cons of fluoride additives has raged for half a century. The main areas of contention, which we will examine, are as follows: 1) Do fluoride compounds prevent dental caries (cavities)
and assist in the development and health maintenance of teeth? DO FLUORIDE COMPOUNDS In June 1993, New Jersey State Assemblyman John V Kelly publicised the disturbing fact that fluoride compounds used in toothpastes and the water supply have never received approval by the American Food & Drug Administration and are officially classified as 'an unapproved new drug'. Kelly's research also uncovered that neither the FDA nor the Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) nor the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry could furnish any proof of fluoride compound safety or effectiveness, as required by law as part of the FDA drug approval process. Which means of course that in the US, almost every American is receiving treatment every day from a drug which is unapproved by the FDA. This in turn means that doctors and dentists prescribing fluoride compounds to patients are committing an illegal act and that the fluoridation of public water supplies is medical experimentation without the target population's consent. If fluoride compounds are, as their proponents exhort, the greatest things to hit the teeth of humanity since fresh water, then why hasn't the FDA approved these 'valuable' compounds? We'll find out as we proceed. THE GRAND RAPIDS/MUSKEGON
FLUORIDE TRIALS Later however, the results of the trials were to reveal disturbing inconsistencies in the collection and reporting of the data. One graph shows that within one year, dental decay had declined 70.5% among six-year-olds in Grand Rapids, when studies were made of all 79 schools in the trial area. The reality is that the data used to start the trial included dental decay rates for all 79 schools, but from 1946 onwards, only the children from 25 hand-selected schools in the trial area were examined, giving rise to an apparent drop in decay rates. During the next three years, the dental decay rates actually rose by 65.2% among the 25 schools, indicating that fluoridation was having no effect in spite of the children (selectively chosen) having the apparent benefit of more years of fluoridation. The only 'reduction' in decay rates had occurred during the year of the selection process. THE KINGSTON/NEWBURGH TRIAL After announcing their victory with fluoridation however, the Public Health Service proponents of fluoridation received a major slap in the face. For, during the tenth year of Newburgh's fluoridation, an independent study of the two townships had been underway, carried out by Dr John A Forst, Professor at the University of the State of New York and chief of the State Bureau of Health Services. He too studied both sets of school children and his results painted a disturbingly different picture: Kingston Newburgh These shocking results were too clear to be ignored. After ten years of fluoridation and when nearly all the children of both townships were examined, it was evident that Newburgh contained more children with dental defects and more children undergoing dental treatment than in Kingston, a township left to its own water devices. To this day, Kingston remains unfluoridated, having vigorously rejected fluoridation at the conclusion of the trials. Later, a follow-up study in 1989 would show that after almost four decades of fluoridation, schoolchildren in Newburgh had no less dental decay than in unfluoridated Kingston. Research by the UK's Safe Water Society yielded similar research results: 1. A US trial studying 50,000 inhabitants across 68
US cities in 1986-7 showed that fluoride increased tooth decay. Leading fluoridation opponent John R Lee MD states that the trial results the dental and chemical industries invariably use are always misreported and techniques employed to give the public false impressions of fluoridation's supposed efficacy and harmlessness. These tactics include the 'percent reduction' method instead of 'rate of change of decay'. This data-manipulation strategy was exposed in the Rand Corporation report of 1981, in which author Craig B Foch states that fluoride studies "suffer from poor experimental design and from analysis plans that largely ignore the possible effects of other factors in tooth decay." Lee reports that doctors and researchers are often in for a bumpy ride if they question fluoride's efficacy and challenge its alleged safety and cost-effectiveness: "When one looks in the dental literature for evidence that fluoridation reduces dental costs, the results are equally dismal. In all studies in which selection bias is not evident [i.e. where the data hasn't been fudged], no reduction in dental costs is found. When Dr Gray, a dental health officer in Vancouver, BC, Canada, examined [the records of] all schoolchildren in British Columbia, he found no dental benefit from fluoridation. Upon reporting this, he was demoted and obliged to desist in making any comment about it." Delivering the target dose of 1.0mg fluoride compounds to each citizen every day costs money - and for what benefit, against what risk? Even supposing one believes in the efficacy of fluorides for dental health, against all reason and scientific evidence, why fluoridate the water supply? Why not just pass out the tablets? In other words, why deliberately spend more? According to one public water supply co-ordinator, the annual projected budget for fluoridating the water supply of Tacoma, Washington State was estimated to be $125,000 in 1991. The cost of supplying fluoride tablets to the under 12s would be a mere $1.20 per thousand 1.0mg tablets in comparison. So why the fixation on medicating the water supplies? We will examine the reasons in the conclusion of this report. In May 1992, Dr William Marcus, the senior science advisor and chief toxicologist with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, was fired from his post after publicly disclosing his frank comments concerning mass medicating the public without its consent and the appalling hazards of fluoridation. Marcus was concerned that the results of US Government studies on fluoridation, completed in 1984 and a second in 1987, were kept from the American public. After a long fight, Dr Marcus was reinstated on 28th February 1995. "If this were any other chemical but fluoride," Marcus commented, "there would be a call for the immediate cessation of its use. It shows potential for great harm." ARE FLUORIDE COMPOUNDS Interestingly, Proctor and Gamble, the manufacturers of Crest toothpaste and an ardent supporter of sodium fluoride, were reported to have admitted that a family size tube of their world famous toothpaste contained enough sodium fluoride to kill a 20-30lb child if ingested. Warning labels appear on American toothpaste packaging advising that in the event of ingestion, the victim should seek a poisons control centre immediately. This ridiculous notice is made more of a sham by the fact that you don't have to swallow poisons like this for them to become absorbed, IF THEY'RE EVEN UNDER THE TONGUE, THEY'RE IN THE BLOODSTREAM. This author has met several elderly gentlemen in the UK who recalled one way conscripts used to attempt to dodge the National Service draft in the 1950s. They would consume half a tube of toothpaste, which subsequently made the recruit extremely ill and unfit to serve. Government and industry have long denied that fluoride additives are toxic waste from industry, preferring to paint a picture of sanitised, benevolent chemicals guarding our teeth day and night administered through the 'safe' water we drink. The reality is, even those within government ranks have broken cover and confirmed the source of these chemicals. Tom Reeves, for example, a water engineer with America's Centers for Disease Control (CDC), controversially admitted in January 2001 that these fluoride additives were waste emissions from heavy industry: "All of the fluoride chemicals used in the U.S. for water fluoridation - sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid - are by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The manufacturing process produces two by-products: (1) a solid, calcium sulphate (sheetrock, CaSo4); and (2) the gases, hydrofluoric acid (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4). A simplified explanation of this manufacturing process follows: Apatite rock, a calcium mineral found in central Florida, is ground up and treated with sulfuric acid, producing phosphoric acid and the two by-products, calcium sulphate and the two gas emissions. Those gases are captured by product recovery units (scrubbers) and condensed into 23% fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6). Sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate are made from this acid." Research highlighting the adverse effects of fluoride compounds on human beings is troublingly abundant. Fluoride's beastliness was summed up in a terse statement issued by Dr Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institute: "Fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical." As far back as October of 1944, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an editorial stating: "… that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3 parts per million of fluoride will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis, and osteoporosis, as well as goitre." The Safe Water Foundation filed Freedom on Information Act requests to obtain the results of government studies. Dr John Yiamouyiannis (president of the Safe Water Foundation) said "All tests came out positive." (establishing a fluoride-cancer link) Dr John Lee, who was chairman of the Environmental Health Committee of his local medical association in Marin County, California, went head-to-head with authorities on the fluoride issue. According to Lee, the county had continually pushed water fluoridation on the local ballot until it passed by a slim margin of one per cent. Lee states: "[Fluoride] is a toxic waste product of many types of industry; for instance, glass production, phosphate fertilizer production and many others. They would have no way to dispose of the tons of fluoride waste they produce unless they could find some use for it, so they made up this story about it being good for dental health. Then they can pass it through everyone's bodies and into the sewer." Lee's comments on their own would be shocking and dismissive. The problem is, hundreds of specialists, doctors and biochemists have been saying the same thing for years. And sure enough, when the curtains were finally pulled back and the veil of secrecy lifted, federal research indeed discovered that fluoride caused cancer in humans and animals. NCI's Dr Burk stated: "It is concluded that artificial fluoridation appears to cause or induce about 20-30 excess cancer deaths for every 100,000 persons exposed per year after about 15-20 years." Incredibly to this day, not only is fluoridation of the water supply and toothpaste still permitted, US federal goals require mandatory fluoridation of the water supply in 75% of all US cities by the close of the year 2000! Yet….
| ||||