RE: “A decision to not fluoridate the water would likely be of little consequence”


GENRE: Email letter

TO: The Editor, Courier Mail

AUTHOR: Grant D

DATE SENT: 15th January 2013

TITLE:  RE: “A decision to not fluoridate the water would likely be of little consequence”

STATUS: Awaiting response

UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below

EXTERNAL LINK: How to fight the fluoridation battle – based on experience from Queensland, Australia by Dr Michael Foley
http://tinyurl.com/a23acfv  To download presentation, click on little ‘down’ arrow at top left of screen, and save to your harddrive.

To: letters@couriermail.com.au

The Editor

Courier Mail

BRISBANE

Dear Editor

In relation to the ABC1 report on the 14th January 2013 and consequent article in your paper today 15th January 2013 where Qld Health’s chief medical officer, Dr Jeannette Young refers to anything that is presented against fluoride is “rubbish” and other erroneous statements.

I would like to submit the following from the World Health Organisation in a 2009 report which stated; “In countries where dental health awareness in the public is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste) are widely available and widely used, a decision to not fluoridate the water would likely be of little consequence.”

Although this may not be a direct statement against fluoridating water supplies, is does show that they know the benefit is minimal and not fluoridating our water may not be as drastic as Queensland Health would have us believe.

It is definitely in stark contrast to the language used by Dr Young and others where they say “Fluoride in drinking water is absolutely essential for good oral health”. Please tell me the WHO are not misinformed as Dr Young has stated by your quote: “The evidence is irrefutable and only the extremely misinformed could think otherwise”.

The purported benefit by fluoridating water is stated in the study of the difference between Townsville (fluoridated) and Brisbane (non-fluoridated) (Study attached) as being 1.78 tooth surfaces in 5-7 year olds who were permanent residents and 0.25 tooth surfaces in 12 year olds. We have 128 tooth surfaces in our mouths. The Qld Govt. Misrepresented this as teeth and not tooth surfaces.

*****************************

On another note I have attached a presentation by Dr Michael Foley [ASWLA comment: see link in letter details, above]  which he used in Japan to explain how to force fluoridation on the population using the example of how they did it here in Queensland. If you read his notes he concedes that there are issues with fluoride and how to best get around the anti-fluoride people.

He says that anyone who opposes fluoride is a conspiracy theorist.

The meaning of conspiracy is; “To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.”

If the intent contained in this presentation does not fit this description I don’t know what does.

I challenge you to objectively look at this presentation and the accompanying notes and tell me with your hand on your heart that this is perfectly acceptable. If so I guess you will have no trouble in footing the party line, if not I hope you can take an objective view and consider the other side of the story and report accordingly.

Kindest Regards

Grant D
Bundaberg Qld. 4670

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s