GENRE: Email response/query
TO: The Presenter, ABC Catalyst; Various email Bcc list
AUTHOR: John T.
DATE SENT: Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:33 PM
TITLE: Catalyst Fluoride Segment: Asking the hard questions of the ABC
STATUS: Awaiting response.
UPDATES: Please post all updates and comments in the LEAVE A REPLY section below.
ATTACHMENTS: 5 x attachments
My understanding is you will be airing a program on the purported benefits of water fluoridation this coming Thursday.
Apparently one of those you intend to interview is Dr Foley who is extremely active in promoting this mass medication of Australians without their consent, control of dosage, or physical examination of the patient.
I have corresponded with Dr Foley, wanting to know why he promotes a drug that has never been tested by the Therapeutic Goods Agency or the Federal Drug Agency for safety and efficacy. The FDA treats artificial fluorides as drugs but does not consider them to be safe and effective.
Furthermore, I wanted to know why he considers councils are able to practice medicine without a license, as this is an offense under the Medical Practitioner Acts in Australia. I am still waiting for a reply. A copy of the contents of my letter is enclosed for your information.
I also wrote to the AMA wanting to know whey they are in favour of water fluoridation when it clearly is a practice in contravention of the Medical Practitioner Acts. I am still waiting for a reply some months later. A copy of this email is also enclosed, together with an Orica Material Safety Data Sheet and an analysis of the water quality being delivered to my home by Shoalhaven Water.
I strongly recommend you examine my Council’s drinking water quality as it not only contains artificial fluoride but also aluminium, lead, arsenic, in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) purported safe drinking water guidelines. These heavy metals are known to cause serious health issues, including cancer and dementia.
A copy of the NHMRC Guidelines is enclosed for your reference. I strongly recommend you examine the disclaimer on page 3 of this 1126 page document, as follows:
The contents of this document have been compiled using a range of source material and while due care has been taken in its compilation, the Commonwealth, member Governments of NHMRC and NRMMC and the organisations and individuals involved with the compilation of this document shall not be liable for any consequences which may result from using the contents of this document. You should therefore make independent inquiries, and obtain appropriate advice, before relying on the information in any important matter.
Furthermore, the Queensland Government has passed into law legislation preventing thAT State from being prosecuted as follows:
WATER FLUORIDATION ACT 2008 – SECT 3
3 Act binds all persons
(1) This Act binds all persons, including the State.
(2) However, nothing in this Act makes the State liable to be prosecuted for an offence.
Furthermore, the Therapeutic Goods Agency has a warning on its Website as follows:
Fluoride supplements (drops, tablets) should not be taken during pregnancy.
The labelling of fluoride supplement products should include advice consistent with the following:
- *This product should only be used on the advice of a dentist.
- *Do not use if pregnant.
This warning may be viewed at: http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/otc-argom-app5-03-efgh.htm#fluoride
These types of tablets and drops contain fluoride levels similar to that contained in artificial fluoridated water. In fact, the level of fluoride contained in fluoride tablets is less than the amount contained in drinking water. See: http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=6e7a7e17-7538-4763-810c-7e56bd630494
A pregnant woman drinking one litre of fluoridated water will ingest the same amount of fluoride or more than the prescribed dose in fluoride tablets and drops.
The TGA has chosen to warn pregnant women about ingesting a chemical over which it has no control. Is this not an abdication of the TGA’s duty of care responsibility to consumers?
Furthermore, if there is the need for a warning, why is there no reference to fluoridated water, containing similar or higher levels of fluoride?
No doubt Dr Foley will chant the usual mantra propagated by all the State Health Departments when assuring your viewers that the artificial fluoride added to their drinking water is “safe and effective”.
When Dr Foley makes this unproven claim, please ask him the following:
Why are Councils adding artificial hazardous fluoride chemical waste instead of natural Calcium Fluoride to drinking water?
Why does this artificial fluoride contain arsenic (a known carcinogenic) and aluminium that has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease and dementia?
Why is it legal for Councils to add an untested medicine to drinking water when it is illegal to practice medicine without a licence?
As fluoride is listed in the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Poisons and Medicines as a Schedule 6 poison (not safe for human use) how is it safe and effective for ingestion?
Why are manufacturers required to place warnings on packaging for oral hygiene products containing fluoride the chemicals are not to be swallowed?
Why does the Therapeutic Goods Agency have a warning on its website that pregnant women should not take fluoride drops and tablets containing less fluoride than contained in 1 litre of water?
If artificial fluoride is safe and effective, why is there a disclaimer in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and why has the Queensland Government legislated to protect the State from prosecution for adding a poison to drinking water?
How many clinical trials have been undertaken in Australia to determine whether water fluoridation is safe and effective when it has never been tested by the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Agency, the body responsible to testing the safety and efficacy of medicines in this country?
Who has conducted the testing in Australia to prove the claim “fluoride is safe and effective”?
What does he consider to be a safe level of artificial fluoride ingestion, and what measures are in place to ensure consumers do not exceed the purported NHMRC safe level of 1 milligram per litre of water?
I might add that while Dr Foley is the Queensland Health Department spin doctor for artificial fluoride we also have one here in NSW. Both of these public officials are dentists and are not scientifically qualified to promote a chemical that have never been proven to be safe for human ingestion. The NSW public official seems to enjoy manipulating the media as follows:
Successful fluoride plebiscite in the township of Deniliquin, New South Wales, Australia,
Journal of Public Health Dentistry
How to Cite
Sivaneswaran, S., Chong, G. T.F. and Blinkhorn, A. S. (2010), Successful fluoride plebiscite in the township of Deniliquin, New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 70: 163–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2009.00154.x
- Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Sydney
*Dr. Shanti Sivaneswaran, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Sydney, 1 Mons Road, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia. Tel.: +61 2-8821-4307; Fax: +61 2-8821-4302; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Shanti Sivaneswaran, Gabriel T.F. Chong, and Anthony S. Blinkhorn are with the Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Sydney
This article describes the strategies adopted to influence the outcome of a plebiscite held in March 2004 in favor of water fluoridation in Deniliquin, a rural town in New South Wales, Australia.
The health promotion strategies undertaken included the following: a) the skillful use of media to educate the community on the benefits of water fluoridation; b) disseminating contemporary local data to demonstrate oral health disparities with neighboring fluoridated townships; and c) a well-established lobbying machine to mobilize the community.
Out of a total population of 5,280 on the electoral roll, 4,539 residents voted, giving a response rate of 86 percent. The wording of the plebiscite was “Do you support the addition of fluoride to Deniliquin town water supply?” There were 2,533 “yes” votes (55.8 percent), 1,879 “no” votes (41.4 percent), and 127 spoiled votes (2.8 percent).
The council resolved to implement water fluoridation and the residents received fluoridated water in January 2005.
I do hope you are mindful that the program you present should be balanced and must inform your viewers about the truth of this medical fraud. As a science based program your interviewer should only be concerned about the facts surrounding the harmful effects or safety of an entire population forcibly ingesting a poison that has never been tested for safety and efficacy.
Before airing this program might I suggest your researchers check out the following short videos to get a good overview of the reasons so many Australians are now concerned about this compulsory systematic medication of the majority of citizen living in this country.
I look forward to watching your program and trust that it will present only the scientific facts about the artificial fluoride being added to the drinking water of most Australians.