GENRE: Email letter
TO: The Editor, Courier Mail
AUTHOR: Sandy S
DATE SENT: Tue, Jan 15, 2013
TITLE: RE: “The evidence is irrefutable and only the extremely misinformed could think otherwise”
STATUS: Awaiting response
UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below
To: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/editorials/letters-formCc: Media Watch
Bcc: Various lists
Attn: Letters to the editor
I wish there was a ‘thumbs down’ button on your website article: Queensland’s Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young cops flak for flouride call http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queenslands-chief-health-officer-jeannette-young-cops-flak-for-flouride-call/story-e6freoof-1226553882769
This is nothing more than blatant propaganda. I cannot believe a news reporting organisation such as yours could be used, as the ABC was last night, for the dissemination of propaganda from our high and mighty Department of Health apparatchik Jeanette Young.
The only thing ‘black and white’ about the issue is that Dr Young’s own unscientific proclamations are ‘absolute rubbish’. She and her bureaucratic fluoride lobby ilk (Michael Foley, Jason Armfield) always make unfounded therapeutic claims in media reports. They are never required by media to substantiate those claims or to defend their position in debate with other scientific experts opposed to fluoridation. Whatever they say is just taken as gospel.
An example of this ‘double speak’ is: “It’s been around in Australia since 1964. If there were any problems, we would have seen them.” What kind of science is that? If you don’t look you don’t find. Denial of evidence does not automatically mean there is none. There is plenty, which is being ignored. Even the oft-quoted NHMRC reports of the past have recommended further studies to measure fluoride exposure and toxicology. These recommendations were never acted on by government. How convenient?
It is an undeniable fact that fluoride has the propensity to accumulate in the body over time, as only 50% is excreted. It is a systemic poison, which is why you will find fluorosis part of many calcifying oxidative inflammatory health conditions. It is very irresponsible to denigrate scientists sounding the alarm bells for us to avert continuing escalation of disease in the community. Such statements could only be expected from a Department of Health in George Orwell’s 1984 – where everything is titled the opposite of what it really is. Now we have a department head NOT looking after the community’s health by ignoring a growing mountain of scientific evidence that chronic ingestion of fluoride is toxic.
Dr Young needs to have a lesson in the difference between ‘dose’ and ‘concentration’ when administering a medication. The concentration (1ppm of fluoride in water) is equivalent to 1mg per litre of quantity (dose). What Dr Young is falsley claiming is that you can never get too much fluoride at 1ppm concentration. However, what about people that drink more than 1 litre of tap water a day? If people drink 3 litres a day they are getting 3mg of fluoride just from this one source. What about people who also drink other beverages manufactured using tap water (many containing about .7ppm fluoride)? What about foods and medications containing fluoride? As tea leaves have a propensity to take up large amounts of fluoride from the ground, a simple cup of black tea made with tap water can contain up to 8mg of fluoride! And what about kidney patients and young babies who would reach toxic doses much sooner?
Another example of ‘double-speak’ in your report is the reference to fluoride as a ‘mineral’, when the substance used to dose (medicate) drinking water is actually a chemical compound: hexafluorosilicic acid, an industrial waste product (S6-7 Poison) that has never been proven safe for ingestion in any study – yet it is merely rubber-stamped by our government bureaucrats and officialdom without question. How convenient? (and mentally lazy). Fluoride is certainly not a mineral. It is a compound formed from the element fluorine (the most acidic volatile element on the periodic table) joined to other elements which include heavy metals. http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=927F7A483567818AF5FFBFC74AB39240 There are many fluoride chemical compounds, but government officials prefer conveniently to refer to all of them as ‘fluoride’, implying that calcium fluoride is the same as pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, is the same as hexafluorosilicic acid, etc. – a slight of hand that media has totally missed.
As if this isn’t bad enough, there’s more:
Dr Young claims, “There is no evidence to show fluoride, in the amounts used in water supplies, has detrimental health effects.” Oh really? Perhaps Dr Young is not aware of the latest scientific study review released in October 2012: Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis – http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/10/developmental-fluoride-neurotoxicity-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/ , where it clearly states: “The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment.” This is only the tip of the iceberg of scientific information that is now available on the relationship between fluoride exposure and brain toxicity.
However, this statement by the Courier Mail itself takes the cake as far as propaganda goes:
“One letter obtained by The Courier-Mail says: “A significant number of studies have shown a lowering of IQ in children exposed to fluoride.” ONE LETTER? In heaven’s name, you must have received at least dozens from the community, who seem to be much more abreast of the science than your journalists. The words ‘one letter’ implies that only one individual has merely made a ‘claim’. It implies that there are no scientific studies that demonstrate fluoride’s neurotoxic effect. I put it to you that this inference and the tone of the report in general is purposefully misleading so that only the propaganda agenda of the government and its fluoride lobby is promoted, whilst any contrary information is worded with implied ridicule and considerably downplayed.
It looks to me as though the clocks have turned back to the 50’s and 60’s when “Doctors smoked Camel” and proclaimed that smoking was good for your health.
Mrs S. Sanderson