GENRE: Email letter
TO: Producer, ABC ‘Catalyst’; Various email Bcc list
AUTHOR: Sandy S
DATE SENT: Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:36 PM
TITLE: Attn: Catalyst – ABC – RE: Michael Foley – Powerpoint presentation to Japanese dentists promoting misleading propaganda techniques to subvert the truth about fluoride toxicity
STATUS: Awaiting response.
UPDATES: Please post all updates and comments in the LEAVE A REPLY section below.
It has come to my attention that your programme on fluoridation scheduled for 8-8-2013 will contain an interview with industry paid dental lobbyist Michael Foley. I would like to bring to your attention that this person does not reflect a good standard to aim for in unbiased science, as he has become notorious as an industry paid shill for the fluoride lobby (paid by chemical companies or their agents) to further the practice of dumping toxic waste products – ie. sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid – into our drinking water for profit.
This is an untreated industrial waste product and contains contaminants such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, radioactive radon and more. It has never been tested for safety and is an unapproved drug. Only 1% of tap water is consumed and 99% goes out into the environment. This is not the right way to get rid of a toxic waste byproduct – and at great expense to the tax payer who has to fund the water dosing fees, as well as exorbitant medical expenses when health is adversely affected by chronic fluoride consumption and accumulation in the body. The environmental pollution that results over time only adds to the gravity of this outdated 1960’s practice that has all but been abandoned by most of the rest of the world.
In the 1960’s doctors were prescribing fluoride as a medication to treat hyperthyroidism at the same concentration that is dosed today to the water supply (1-2mg per day = 1-2 litres of fluoridated water). This means that the practice of fluoridating the water is administering a whole population with a drug that suppresses the thyroid. Have you checked the skyrocketing rates of hypothyroidism in the community?
There is good reason to believe that we are being overdosed with fluoride, which blocks the uptake of iodine (if you are even getting enough from our food supply). Iodine is also blocked by the other halogens of chlorine and bromine which are now excessive in our food and water supply. Fluoride also binds and inhibits vital magnesium (the most important mineral electrolyte in the body), which is integral in the production of ATP by mitochondria. As enzyme activity is reliant on ATP energy, and fluoride inhibits this energy production, the enzyme activity is thus dampened by fluoride exposure. This means that every cell in the body is adversely affected by fluoride exposure, as fluoride applies the brakes to energy production and enzyme activity. It is a systemic poison that directly affects the whole nervous and electrical system. This is why it is such an effective pesticide and rodenticide.
Fluoride is not a nutrient, as the body can be very well and healthy without even a trace of fluoride. It only inhibits life and cellular energy production in the body. Fluoride accumulates over time, mostly in the bones and pineal gland. No one is measuring how much we are now exposed to from all sources and how much we are storing in our tissue cells.
The practice of fluoridation is actually medication because it involves the preparation of a medicinal product – fluoridated water delivered from water taps in the household – and prepared by councils and water authorities by adding .7 or 1ppm of fluoridation chemicals (industrial waste products) to water, the stated purpose being to prevent caries. This stated purpose defines it as a medicinal product as it is administered for a therapeutic purpose. Whether it works or not is beside the point. The definition only requires that the intention of the administration is to achieve a therapeutic effect or a prophylactic effect.
So here we have councils (not doctors) administering a medication where anyone can drink of it as much as they want, the dosage is not controlled, and the side effects of overdose are not being monitored. It’s sheer madness.
This leads to the very pertinent question of ethics. What right does any government or public utility have to force medication on other members of the community via the common drinking water supply? Clearly there are some sub-population groups that are more sensitive to fluoride toxicity, such as infants, elderly, people with auto-immune diseases, diabetes, cancer and chemical sensitivity. Often these groups cannot afford the expensive filters that get most of the fluoride out of the tap water. Fluoridation discriminates against the poor and inferm.
An excellent published paper called: ‘Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia’ by Professor Niyi Awofeso (University of NSW) is available at: http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Sutton-Fluoridation-Errors-And-Omissions-In-Experimental-Trials-Melbourne-University-Press-1959-1960.pdf
David Shaw has also published an eye-opening legal dissertation in Medical Law International called: ‘Weeping and Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth: The Legal Fiction of Water Fluoridation‘ – http://mli.sagepub.com/content/12/1/11.abstract
I would like to think that Australia will follow the lead of the EU and adopt safer and more ethical pathways in relation to the cessation of fluoridation. May it be cast back to the annals of the 60’s alongside the spraying of DDT to treat headlice, lead in petrol, asbestos and smoking. In the meantime I will leave you with an attachment of Michael Foley’s powerpoint presentation to Japanese dentists in his effort to enlist them to lobby and adopt deceptive methods leading to enforcement of fluoridation where the public have no say. A copy of the published presentation was made while it was available on a Japanese websites. It has since been removed, so herewith is a copy. If you have studied the strategies of propaganda and how to mislead the public you will find this powerpoint presentation almost text book style on the subject.
You will notice that he advocates avoidance of scientific debate in public, the use of industry endorsements and community advocates to repeat the dogma. ‘Caries rates are more prominent in the 5-6 year old age group,’ and therefore, he advocates, these statistics should be used in preference in advertisements. However, if you do the research you will find that in fluoridated areas eruption of the adult teeth is delayed by about one year. This means that in the 5-6 year old age group there are less teeth to measure caries in fluoridated areas compared to unfluoridated and that skews the statistics. By the time of the next set of statistics at 12 – 13 years when the adult teeth have erupted, the difference is minimal and not statistically significant. In fact, caries rates drop much more dramatically in higher socio-economic areas where nutrition and hygiene are better – irrespective of fluoridation. If you look at Tasmania, the first state to be fluoridated in 1953, and with over 90% fluoridation rate, it has the worst caries rates in the whole of Australia. See attached. Fluoridation is an obvious FAIL.
Fluoridation is promoted like a game of smoke and mirrors for the profits of industry groups that have a convenient outlet for their toxic waste products. Good science should be above this kind of nonsense and willing to look at the evidence and facts without fear of propagandist ridicule. It’s time we woke up to the scam and moved on.
ATTACHMENTS x 2: INTERSTATE COMPARISON OF ADULT TOOTH DECAY EXPERIENCE 2007