WARNING: Strong language ASWLA DISCLAIMER: We take no responsiblity for people’s real feelings and just archive letters/comments.
GENRE: FEEDBACK from public
TO: ABC ‘Catalyst’ Water Fluoridation segment, 8th August 2013
AUTHORS: The general public. ASWLA comment: We will archive all comments, even if we publish this post before all comments are in — we’ll just keep adding as they are submitted.
DATE SENT: Thursday 8th August, ongoing till all comments are in.
TITLE: RE: ABC ‘Catalyst’ Water fluoridation – PUBLIC COMMENTS – One long thread ongoing…..
STATUS: No response required.
UPDATES: Please post all updates and comments in the LEAVE A REPLY section below.
EXTERNAL LINKS: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821248.htm
#1. It is interesting that they say Fluoride lowers intelligence – seems hard to imagine a whole state or country with morons as ethically low as the Peoples Bullshit TV station THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCAST COMMISSION. Commonly called the bullshit brigade.
Just where do they get such ” intelligent ” journalists from must be imported, most Aussies aren’t that stupid.
Have they gone overboard on their reporting with such blatant lying ????
I have to get my handkerchief and weep at the juvenile tactics of a Pro Fluoride group.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
Brian W. (VIC)
#2. My impressions are that the presentation was like a children’s fairy tale, not a adult body of work as was presented in the piece on sugar. Even the presenter had a tone of a adult putting on a simplified somewhat babyish dialogue as if talking to preschoolers.
“This board is not open to new messages at present. Please try again later. Messages over 500 words long may be automatically truncated. All comments are moderated. Please refer to the ABC’s Conditions of Use.”
Says it all. Spineless.
#4. Complaint re: Biased Reporting – ABC Catalyst 8 August 2013
Attn: Programme Management – Catalyst Dear Sir, Whilst I must commend you on the excellent segment about the contribution of sugar hidden in packaged foods to the escalating global obesity rate, the propagandist presentation of the issues of fluoridation was its antithesis. Glaringly obvious in the juxtaposition of these two topics in the same show is the fact that the biggest contributor to the rise in caries is sugar consumption, yet this was not mentioned. Instead we were led to believe by the Hawaiian shirted and infamous Michael Foley that caries develop because of some kind of fluoride deficiency, and that a little ‘systemic topping up’ every day is supposed to ensure fluoroapatite forms in tooth enamel like the old Mrs Marsh commercials.
I’m so sick to death of the corruption of science by big industry agendas. The science is prolific that fluoride toxicity is escalating. Only half the fluoride of chronic fluoridated water consumption is excreted and the fluoride accumulates over time. This has very adverse effects on the brain and other organs because it is a systemic poison. It was admitted that fluoride is a poison, but somehow justified that in small amounts it’s okay. What kind of lunatic statement is that?
How do you know what that fluoride is doing to every other cell in the body beside the tooth enamel when industrial grade fluoride chemicals (hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride) have never been proven safe for ingestion? What’s worse is that they are used in the water supply as an unapproved drug with the intention of achieving a therapeutic prophylactic effect. NHMRC have qualified their recommendation by repeatedly stating in each review that there are not enough quality studies and they cannot make a conclusion about safety of consumption over time for people in population subgroups that may be sensitive to fluoride such as people with kidney disease.
How do you know how much fluoride people are ingesting when they can drink any amount of this medication without restriction, and also absorb fluoride from dental products, drugs and the food supply via the halo effect?How can you dare to show the image of a very white set of teeth to imply fluoride gives you perfect teeth when fluorosis of the teeth has become so common? Why did you not show pictures of what fluorosis looks like?
You did not present any information about the damning evidence against fluoridation. Instead of informing people about the studies showing the relationship of fluoride consumption with the lowering of IQ, Hawaiian shirted Foley just glossed over these facts as though they were someone’s imaginings. You did not contradict any of his propaganda with the evidence that is now so readily available.
What about the recent Harvard meta analysis on the neurological effects of fluoride on children?
There is so much to choose from and you had NOTHING. Unbelievable!
Why didn’t you show the caries statistics of each state if you wanted to prove that fluoridation lowers caries? You compared Townsville with Brisbane using Hawaiian shirted Foley’s skewed statistics. It’s not a 45% difference at all. One quarter of a tooth surface is not statistically significant and in fact in all comparisons from around the world there is no statistical difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in the prevalence of caries. The only time the difference becomes greater is in the 5-6 year old age group because in fluoridated areas tooth eruption is delayed by a year, and so there are less teeth to measure and compare in the fluoridated areas. This difference disappears as children get older. The reason tooth eruption is delayed is because fluoride deposits in and affects the pineal gland which regulates our body clock. Yes, this little ‘systemic top up’, as referred to by Hawaiian shirted Foley, affects quite a lot more than the enamel. But you have censored all that data. Why?
Why didn’t you show the statistics for Tasmania? They are the first Australian state to be fluoridated and after 60 years they have the worst caries rates in Australia.And you call this science?There is no morality in fluoridation. It is mass medication and a heinous crime against humanity. Get out of the 60′s mentality and catch up with the rest of the world – PLEASE! The comparison with seat belt rules is so old and hackneyed I’m surprised Hawaiian shirted Foley hasn’t come up with anything new in his arsenal. Seat belts are a safety precaution and doesn’t harm: Fluoridation has no precautionary principle and many people in the population can easily accumulate toxic levels. Yes, arsenic is a poison too, and in small doses over a number of years you can destroy organs and life. Fluoride is not a nutrient and in fact inhibits vital nutrients such as magnesium and iodine: A shortage in magnesium and iodine is associated with heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cancer, mental illness and osteoporosis. Just a ‘systemic top-up’? No thanks!
Councils and water authorities are given the job to administer a medication with no medical qualifications to anyone regardless of their health status or sensitivities, and people can consume as much as they like without any monitoring of side effects. Fluoride was used in the 60′s to treat hyperthyroid. Now we have the mass dosing of a population with an anti-thyroid medication. And you seem to think this is okay? Where is your moral compass?
Most of the rest of the world has ceased fluoridation because of the damning science that has emerged over the years. You cannot control the dose and people are being over-exposed.
This was just a sad dusty old propaganda piece. Nothing new. Very disappointing.
Sandy S. (QLD)
# 5. Hey Dickhead, I just saw your bullshit report:
May God have mercy on your soul.
Name withheld. (VIC)
#6. It was truly the most disgusting piece of un-journalistic biased mess of outright lies I’ve ever had the misfortune to watch.
The out-right lies. How can any of you, sleep at night….?
You will see what such lies bring to fruit.
Nice you coupled it with sugar. The very first thing in the body that goes out of whack with fluoride, is the hormonal system.
Paid industry shills, the lot of you.
‘Lamestream Spews’ sounds appropriate even though inelegant.
Name withheld (QLD)
#9. Here’s my comment. Let it go down in history.
A substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
A person or thing that precipitates an event.
Here is Dr Michael Foley, the industry attack dog in his Hawaiian shirt, looking and sounding like a used car salesman regurgitating the same old same old, like a dog returning to his vomit. He could be called a ‘catalyst’ in the sense that he hopes to speed up the reaction of the masses to accepting fluoridation resulting in a huge explosion of informed rebels who can see through the lies and deception, the ultimate irony. Michael Foley, I read your power point presentation to the Japanese showing them how to use propaganda and skew the statistics to make fluoridation look better than it is. You didn’t want anyone to see that presentation did you you disgusting, lying, manipulative scumbag. That’s why you had that power point presentation removed from the Japanese website immediately it became public. What did you have to hide Michael? Now we all know who you really are. You’re not a Dentist’s arsehole. You are an industry paid shill, a mole, a prostitute and a parasite and one day I will piss on your grave.
It’s because of you that I have to deliver bottled water to my 82 year old mum for the rest of her life because she is kidney impaired and has no teeth so where is the benefit to her.
The ABC should hang its head in shame for refusing to allow some balance in the segment by interviewing at least one Dentist, Toxicologist or scientist who doesn’t tow the party line.
The first segment in tonight’s program about sugar and obesity was brilliant and did exactly what the second segment on fluoride should have done, exposing the greed and self interest agenda of big business at the expense of the masses.
Gone are the days when you can fool us with your one sided propaganda.
Those of us who avoid fluoride have sharp brains that know how to research. We have social media, and we know how to cut through your bullshit.
This is one more holy cow that will be slaughtered for the footy Bar B Qs across Australia like Lead, Asbestos, DDT and Tobacco.
All you conspirators and leaches who knowingly participate in this evil will take your sins with you to the grave……………..AND YOU WILL BE JUDGED.
Peter S (QLD)
- One of the legal chemicals stipulated or mandated in section 5 of the Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008, NaF, Na2SiF6, H2SiF6 or ‘naturally’ occuring fluoride? See attached section 5 below. OR
- Either NaF, Na2SiF6 or H2SiF6 as stated on page 4 of the “Code of Practice for the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies”? See part copy & paste section below OR
- NaF, Na2SiF6 or H2SiF6 as stated on page 8-6 of the “Australian Drinking Water Guidelines”? See part copy & paste of applicable sections below. OR
- A mixture of non legal or lawful toxic industrial waste carcinogenic chemicals, heavy metals & poisons such as, but not limited to – As, Ag, Al, Cu, B, Be, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, I, Fe, Pb, Mn, Also note the Hg, Mo, Ni, Sb, Se, Zn or URANIUM? See attached batch analysis of fluoridating chemical from SEQWater in South East Queensland, note the ‘fluoridating’ chemical is labelled to be – ANALYSIS OF FLUOROSILICATE SAMPLES. Also note the Incitec Pivot batch analysis of labelled FLUOROSILICIC ACID i.e. H2SiF6. Incitec Pivot is a fertiliser company.
Please advise the safe limit for ingestion of Arsenic, lead, mercury, barium & URANIUM for babies, immune compromised people, the elderley & hospitalised people generally over long term use of fluoridated water.
Please explain how a ‘fluoridating’ batch of legislated therefore ‘legal’ Na2SiF6 or H2SiF6 comes to have all the toxic carcinogenic chemicals, heavy metals in, when it is only supposed to have Na, F, Si & H.
Question 1. From the Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008:
“5 Forms of fluoride—Act, s 12(a)
For the Act, section 12(a), the forms of fluoride that a public potable water supplier for a public potable water supply may add to the water supply are the following—
(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 maximum concentration, for the water supply, under section 4A.”
Question 2. From page 4 of the “Code of Practice for the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies” -
The fluoride compounds permitted under the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Regulation 1998 are listed below, together with their alternative names. The names listed
in the Regulation have been used throughout this Code to avoid confusion.
Fluoride compound Formula Alternative names
Disodium hexafluorosilicate Na2SiF6 Sodium fluorosilicate, sodium silicofluoride
Hexafluorosilicic acid H2SiF6 Hydrofluorosilicic acid, fluorosilicic acid
Sodium fluoride NaF
Question 3. From page 8-6 of the “Australian Drinking Water Guidelines” -
Hydrofluorosilicic acid H2SiF6 1983 Fluoridation
Sodium fluoride NaF 1983 Fluoridation
Sodium fluorosilicate Na2SiF6 1983 Fluoridation
I apologise for the laymans language used above, as I am not a toxocologist, scientist, doctor or dentist. I trust the meaning is clear though.
Please ring me on the number below for any explanation.
I look forward to your response
Leigh H (QLD)
(Phone number given to ABC, but withheld for ASWLA posting).
#11. Well so much for that – Catalyst managed to make fluoride sound like the best thing since sliced bread and show up the anti’s as idiots.
Good move asking a man with false teeth about fluoride!
No mention of Fluorosis, NO mention of where our fluoride comes from, NO mention of the ‘individual’ dose being impossible to monitor…
just the usual spin and garbage of fluoride promoters. Wonder how much and by whom, was Catalyst was PAID for that program!!!
Also, it was said that Townsville was the only fluoridated town in Queensland before mandation – what happened to Dalby, Mareeba, and Moranbah???
#13. Archive this:
FUCK THESE CUNTS.
Name withheld. (VIC)
#14. Might pay to find out who or what was paid to 2 for BS and who was taken out to dinner.
How about a complaint to the Journalist Union or whatever on the ethics of the reporter and to the communications minister on the Bias …
Please allow people who are “proper scientists” to be interviewed and have an unbiased debate. There are many examples I could send you however, attached is something I believe you should read. As far as Australia is concerned I consider we are a ‘third world country’ when it comes to fluoridation.
Sincerely, Sandra C, Geelong (VIC)
BTW I was brought up in unfluoridated Geelong (70 years of age) have my own teeth.
# 17. I would like to say that you owe the Anti Fluoride Group the right of reply to this obnoxious untrue report on Catalyst last night.
You only have to refer to the graph put out a couple of years ago ( made up from Government figures) showing that when Townsville was the only fluoridated town in Queensland, that State had no more and in some cases less tooth problems than the other States.
I suggest if you have not already done so to watch the Firewater video and Paul Connetts video of one of his very well attended meetings in Australia. Not only that, Weary Dunlop was very much against Fluoride stating that symptoms could take up to 30 years to show up, and several Nobel Prize winners for health have come out fighting against fluoridation.
Please do your homework and really research the number of peer reviewed articles on the problems of fluoridation.
Think about the increase in the number of people who now have severe kidney problems, diabetics and other serious illnesses, I read a couple of years ago that the number of people on dialysis was eight fold in comparison to the previous 10 years, and diabetes has grown way out of proportion. Of course no one would even consider it could be fluoridation that is causing this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If fluoridation is so wonderful for teeth, why is Western Australia and Tasmania among the first to fluoride in dental chaos. So much so that Bob Brown demanded a Government fund like Medibank to help fix the dental problem in Tasmania. How is this possible if fluoridation is the answer to good dental health.
I can certainly send you copies of these but I am sure Merilyn Haines would have already done so. Please do the right thing and GIVE US THE RIGHT OF REPLY in the very near future.
Yours in disgust
BETTE S Red Cliffs (VIC)
When we heard that Catalyst (ABC1 last night, 8 pm Thursday 8th August) – was doing a story on water fluoridation tonight we were concerned that it would be very one –sided biased promotion of water fluoridation, especially when it was pre-promoted as “ how it protects your teeth “
When we heard that Catalyst was interviewing Qld Health Dentist Michael Foley and Prof Michael Moore, both very ardent lobbyists for fluoridation, and we were flatly ignored when we offered to be interviewed to provide an alternative view point, we were certain that it would one sided.
Michael Foley has traveled the length and breadth of Qld promoting continuing forced fluoridation to councils. In his presentations he even claims that fluoride is an essential nutrient. Michael Moore, a toxicologist, has written to every council in Qld urging them to continue forced fluoridation.
Michael Foley was given open slather by Catalyst – he claimed that a 1996 study showed there was a massive difference between tooth decay in fluoridated Townsville and unfluoridated Brisbane . The study actually showed for children aged 6 to 12 years the average difference was only 0.23 of one tooth surface ( when there are over a hundred tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth). The authors conceded that this difference in tooth decay in children’s permanent teeth was almost insignificant, yet Michael Foley claimed this was a massive difference.
The very pro-fluoride Centre for Disease Control in the USA has for a number of years acknowledged that the main action of fluoride is topical (touches teeth) rather than systemic (swallowed). This poses a problem for fluoridation promoters because toothpaste used for a topical effect (with 1000 ppm fluoride has a 1000 times more fluoride than fluoridated water. If 1ppm had a significant topical effect then toothpaste manufacturers would only have to make toothpaste with 1ppm fluoride, instead, in recent years they have introduced toothpaste with 5000 ppm. Michael Foley however, incredulously claimed that water fluoridation had some systemic effect, but a much greater topical effect.
Michael Moore quoted that the NHMRC 2007 Fluoride review as having 5,500 studies (it actually only INCLUDED 113 studies) and he neglected to mention that it was largely based on the 2000 York University Review. Prof Trevor Sheldon the Chair of the York Review, wrote to the House of Lords complaining about Medical and Dental Assn misusing the findings of the York Review. The York University review certainly didn’t find fluoridation was safe.
Michael Moore also quoted one paper on Osteosarcoma (which used cancer patients as their normal controls) but certainly didn’t quote the 2006 Osteosarcoma study by Bassin et al, the finding linking exposure of boys in childhood to water fluoridation to increased risk of later developing Osteosarcoma, have never been refuted and still hold.
If you didn’t see this Catalyst program, the transcript can be read and Vodcast can be viewed HERE
If you feel, as we do that Catalyst story was very biased, you might wish to do or more of the following
(1) put a comment on the bottom of the Catalyst story on the website
(2) send an email to Catalyst firstname.lastname@example.org
(3) or complain to Media Watch email@example.com
(4) even possibly put a complaint on ABC website Audience & Consumer Complaints http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm
Never forget that this argument is not about whether or not water fluoridation has some small statistical benefit when dealing with tooth decay in children. It is about whether it is ethical for the state to allow industrial waste chemicals to be dumped into to your drinking water supply, medicating you with an uncontrolled dosage of a toxin that has proven multiple adverse effects on humans.
If we’re wrong then 96% of countries in the world are also wrong and have been since this first started in the USA over 60 years ago, and here in Australia 50 years ago.
# 20. From: AFAM Research Division
Date: Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:39 PM
Subject: Principles of Toxicology?
To: firstname.lastname@example.orgDear Professor Moore,
In last night’s Catalyst program, on water fluoridation, you were quoted as follows:
“It goes back to one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology – the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you’ve got a problem.”
I agree, but how is the dose controlled for the patients (i.e. the consumers of public drinking water) when they are drinking uncontrolled amounts of water, and also receiving fluoride from other sources?
Without this control over dose, how is an adequate margin of safety calculated to protect the entire spectrum of the population, from infants, to the elderly, to the sick?
Furthermore, I was under the impression that in pharmacology, the right dose needs to be delivered to the right person, to treat the right condition, at the right time. How is this possible when the substance for treatment is added to public drinking water supplies?
AFAM Research Division
# 21. From the transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821248.htm
Dr Denis Ingham It is very effective, and has been very effective in reducing tooth decay. ………..
NARRATION So it’s clear that water fluoridation works. But, how exactly? Teeth are the hardest substance in the body, primarily made up of a mineral called ‘hydroxylapatite’. Fluoride, either in water or toothpaste, gets absorbed into the tooth enamel and forms a new, stronger mineral called ‘fluorapatite’.
Dr Michael Foley And that stronger mineral is then more resistant to the acid that causes tooth decay. Remember Mrs Marsh used to talk about, ‘It gets in like liquid gets into this chalk’?
Mrs Marsh It gets right into teeth, like this liquid gets into chalk.
Boy To make teeth really tough.
Dr Michael Foley Well, she was right. It strengthens the enamel, makes it much, much more resistant to acid. With fluoridated water, of course, you get both – you get the systemic benefit for little kiddies, and you get the much greater topical effect. You’re always getting a little bit of a top-up. It’s like a little fluoride treatment lots and lots of times during the day to make your teeth stronger.
The essence of the story – fluoride is absorbed by teeth via contact — not ingested and absorbed by the stomach
# 23. To whom it may concern,
I am disgusted with the total and unconcerned bias demonstrated by Catalyst in regards to Fluoridation. There was no attempt to discover even minimum basis in fact the reality of what your guest had to say. Once again a true perversion of the actual results of these studies was given and the false conclusion given that Fluoridation, otherwise known as Mass Medication, is vital for Dental Health. You should be not only embarrassed but also in the future legally liable for the continued illness, neural damage and death resulting from Fluoridation.
Please send your comments… and ASWLA will keep archiving.~~~~~