The fluoridation fraud is facing a strong rebellion in Qld

[Garpal Gumnut]

I'm sorry it annoys you gg, it seems it was a fairly traumatic experience for you as a youngster.

Fascism always is.

Even when just done by intellectuals with soft power.

gg

 

[pixel]

The cost-benefit argument is absolute BS.
How is it cost-effective to pour 12L fluoridated water down the toilet with every flush?
How about the kilolitres of poolwater, reticulation, ...

It would be far more cost-effective to concentrate on what causes tooth decay. If, as common sense would suggest, teeth decay from insufficient brushing and sugary, acidic drinks: Add fluorides to coke and lemonade! Get some research done that measures the damage each does, then mandate the adequate dosage to neutralise the ill effects. Add some to chocolate, jellybabies, whatever is found to cause decay. But don't force a "cure" on all those who don't need it.

Oh! but then you could only get rid of 0.001% as much of the industrial waste, and the polluters would have to absorb the costs. Can't have that of course. Can't force the makers of soft drinks and sweets either to add something useful to their product. So we better keep poisoning our kids and polluting the environment in ways that won't show during the next 5 election cycles or even generations...

 

[Calliope]

You don't really, except by analysing the points I make. That can't hurt you... unless you have an adgenda against me or are uncomfortable with being shown your long held trust of some powerful medical professionals is ill-founded.

The above was in answer to my question;

How do we know that you "are completely open, honest, factual and not corrupt?"

It doesn't take much analysis of the "points" you make, to work out your agenda. You are using fluoridation of water as a handy prop to pursue a vendetta against the medical profession. You claim you are a behavioral psychologist. I noticed you practicing your craft on GG;

I'm sorry it annoys you gg, it seems it was a fairly traumatic experience for you as a youngster

Perhaps you had some traumatic experience as a youngster that has embittered you against the medical profession.

 

[Whiskers]

The above was in answer to my question;

It doesn't take much analysis of the "points" you make, to work out your agenda. You are using fluoridation of water as a handy prop to pursue a vendetta against the medical profession. You claim you are a behavioral psychologist. I noticed you practicing your craft on GG;


Perhaps you had some traumatic experience as a youngster that has embittered you against the medical profession.

Actually there are quite a few ways to tell if you are having a discussion with an 'sincere' person.

They also include 'playing the person' instead of the ball (issue) and jumping to conclusions or deliberately misquoting such as I said I had training in... and you misquote "are a behavioural psychologist".

If you were a 'professional' person on whom you communication was being relied upon, you would be guilty of negligence by misquoting and misrepresenting the facts and fraud if you stood to gain from it.

You are part correct... I am a conscious objector to unjustice in the public service. I'm not bitter or have a vendetta against the medical profession... on the contrary, I'm very supportive of and thankful for the medical profession generally and friends and relatives in the profession.

By way of example I have recently beat a traffic fine where a vengeful cop tried to make a point. Two different magistrates found in favor of the cop in the hearing and rehearing, but upon appeal to the district court the prosecution was forced to withdraw.

The short story and moral is, the prosecution tried to manipulate the law and play on the credability of the police service inherent in the law, over the truth and facts. Their undoing was I played the facts in the context of accountability under the law and the prosecution was found to have mislead the court.

Similarly with fluoridation, there are legal/class actions being planned and they will win in the end for the same reasons... key people in the regulatory authorities didn't play buy the rules and deliberately or negligently mislead people.

So Calliope, what is your adgenda... are you claiming the medical profession is above reproach, are you just being an annoying troll, or have you some constructive input to the issue of fluoridation?

 

[Calliope]

So Calliope, what is your adgenda... are you claiming the medical profession is above reproach, are you just being an annoying troll, or have you some constructive input to the issue of fluoridation?

My "adgenda" (sic) is an interest in why you are carrying out a malicious vendetta against the medical profession under the guise of altruism. Your mention of "class action" is a clue. I suppose you are trying to create the right atmosphere for your "class action" case.

"annoying troll"...now there's irony for you.

I have no interest in the fluoride issue, nor any other conspiracy theories. As far as I'm concerned the debate is dead in the water in spite of your attempts to resurrect it.

If you were a 'professional' person on whom you communication was being relied upon, you would be guilty of negligence by misquoting and misrepresenting the facts and fraud if you stood to gain from it

It is very strange that a "professional person" claiming to be lawyer can't spell "agenda" or "credibility." I'm afraid your "credability" is shot

Nothing to see here...move on. I will be making no further comment. Go for it.

 

[Julia]

The cost-benefit argument is absolute BS.
How is it cost-effective to pour 12L fluoridated water down the toilet with every flush?
How about the kilolitres of poolwater, reticulation, ...

It would be far more cost-effective to concentrate on what causes tooth decay. If, as common sense would suggest, teeth decay from insufficient brushing and sugary, acidic drinks: Add fluorides to coke and lemonade! Get some research done that measures the damage each does, then mandate the adequate dosage to neutralise the ill effects. Add some to chocolate, jellybabies, whatever is found to cause decay. But don't force a "cure" on all those who don't need it.

I agree. Medicating, unnecessarily, an entire population when there's an acceptable alternative of those who wish to consume fluoride doing so individually, is imo just wrong, not to mention a huge waste of money.

I have no interest in the fluoride issue, nor any other conspiracy theories. As far as I'm concerned the debate is dead in the water in spite of your attempts to resurrect it.

You have no interest in it, yet leap to rubbish the concerns that Whiskers and many others express.

It is very strange that a "professional person" claiming to be lawyer can't spell "agenda" or "credibility." I'm afraid your "credability" is shot

I have not seen where Whiskers has claimed to be either a lawyer or a behavioural psychologist. What he said was

I have a basic understanding of science, but as you know from earlier, I have qualifications in accounting and law and behavioural psychology.

I have no idea what these qualifications are, and don't consider it especially relevant to the debate about fluoride.
Twisting people's words in order to further have a go at them is imo unhelpful.

 

[Some Dude]

I think it's a good additive and believe the Dentists and Doctors on it by the way, but this is about the debate.

So on the Debate.

1. Most folk against Fluoride operate on the fringes of their professions.

2. Many are doctors' wives or people with other strange beliefs with bugger all else to do.

3. I can find nothing against fluoridation by googling major health, dental, public health, medical and scientific journals and the WHO.

4. This post will make absolutely no difference to the belief of believers that it is bad.

+1 here.

I can't make any informed assessment, can't find any relevant literature indicating it is bad, and likewise end up deferring to the professionals about it.

I agree. Medicating, unnecessarily, an entire population when there's an acceptable alternative of those who wish to consume fluoride doing so individually, is imo just wrong, not to mention a huge waste of money.

Interesting point. My initial reaction was to compare it to vaccinations but herd immunity doesn't really factor in here. A better analogy might be iodised salt? Interesting to note that when I read the wikipedia entry, they mentioned fluoridated salt.

I had a guy apply for a job once, resume was incredible but I first realised that I had an interesting character when I brought him a glass of water and he asked "Is that tap water?". I said yes and ask why upon which he spent the next 5 minutes telling me about the problems with fluoride and how it is used in China to keep the population dumb etc.

Was an interesting interview.

 

[Calliope]

You have no interest in it, yet leap to rubbish the concerns that Whiskers and many others express.

Not so. I was merely pointing my concern at Whisker's nasty attitude towards the medical profession. He is the one doing all the rubbishing.

Twisting people's words in order to further have a go at them is imo unhelpful.

I agree. That's why I don't do it. It is others who try to put words in my mouth.

Unlike you, I agree with Some Dude's response to GG;

I can't make any informed assessment, can't find any relevant literature indicating it is bad, and likewise end up deferring to the professionals about it.

And...shock, horror;

Mandatory fortification
Since October 2009, regulations have required that non-iodised salt be replaced with iodised salt in all bread except organic bread and bread mixes for making bread at home. However, manufacturers can choose to add iodised salt to bread mixes if they wish. Additionally, salt-free breads will not contain iodised salt. This action was taken to address the re-emergence of deficiency in Australia and New Zealand.

 

[Whiskers]

+1 here.

I can't make any informed assessment, can't find any relevant literature indicating it is bad, and likewise end up deferring to the professionals about it.

I have to admit I was in a similar position some years ago... but I have a pre-disposition for a sustainable, holistic enviornment as opposed to the commercial, consumption based economic model where you keep consuming something extra to fix or make things better.

Often it's better sustainable and holistic economics to consume less to gain more health and wealth.

I had a guy apply for a job once, resume was incredible but I first realised that I had an interesting character when I brought him a glass of water and he asked "Is that tap water?". I said yes and ask why upon which he spent the next 5 minutes telling me about the problems with fluoride and how it is used in China to keep the population dumb etc.

Was an interesting interview.

I can imagine... but it is based in some fact. Fluorine was long used in poison, chemical and nuclear weapon production before fluoridation of water became too fashionable. Hitler apparently experimented with nerve gas type chemicals using fluorine. Actually you might be surprised how many chemicals and drugs involve fluorine or fluoride in the process. But as I mentioned at the outset of the thread, I accept some use of pharmaceutical grade fluoride in products like tooth paste and drugs for individual use.

My objection is to mass fluoridation of water systems with contaminated industrial grade fluoride.

And...shock, horror;

Now that's a useful contribution from you Calliope.

Research shows fluoride is antaganistic to calcium and iodine uptake, especially in low iodine diets as much of the fluoridated world is heading. The proponents of fluoridation have no choice but to advocate extra iodine supplementation.

 

[Calliope]

.
Now that's a useful contribution from you Calliope.

Research shows fluoride is antaganistic to calcium and iodine uptake, especially in low iodine diets as much of the fluoridated world is heading. The proponents of fluoridation have no choice but to advocate extra iodine supplementation.

Good spin whiskers.

 

[Some Dude]

Often it's better sustainable and holistic economics to consume less to gain more health and wealth.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Contextualise everything I say here under the caveat that I don't know but I would have assumed that the decision to add fluoride to water would have been done after study, analysis, and testing determined that it was a positive course of action? That doesn't mean it is correct now, or that there isn't a better way, but I am not quite sure how the consume less works in this context? I can choose to consume less tooth paste, panadol, iodine, and omega 3 but that doesn't mean that they are the best choices for me?

I can relate more to Julia's point about it being a decision given that there is not a herd or communal impact that requires a group or social decision but I am still processing that one.

My objection is to mass fluoridation of water systems with contaminated industrial grade fluoride.

Noted. Any peer reviewed literature about that this? I can't profess to have investigated this too deeply.

 

[QldSafeWater]

I would start by differentiating this thread "Fluoridation" from the previous "Fluoride" thread, in the sense that I accept there may be some benefit in fluoride products like tooth paste for some people if they choose to use them, but having our health bureaucrats demand we put filthy contaminated fluoride by-products in our drinking water is quite another.

From what I'm hearing at least two councils in the Burnett region have decided to turn off or not connect to fluoridation.

Bundaberg has dug it's heels in and told the Qld chief health officer Dr Jeanette Young (who by the way is demanding that we fluoridate our water) to knick off, you are not going to tell us what to do with our water. Apparently only two of the 10 councilers are in favor of fluoridation, but will not support it because of the ongoing costs to the local council.

The Mayor has arranged a public debate for Jan 30, but so far Dr Young and the pro-fluoride lobby are refusing to show up, rather they organised a seperate pro-fluoridation meeting a week or so ago, where they could have their say without any 'credible' counter information being discussed. They are on record as saying the science is black and white and the noisy minority who dissagree are seriously miss-informed... and that's just the tame end of the abuse critics have got from Qld health and the pro-fluoridation lobby.

I see a similar story developing on the Gold Coast where the push to get rid of fluoridation since the LNP won office and gave them the option to opt out of the filthy excuse for healthier teeth.

C'mon people, it's time to have a closer look at the inaccurate and sometimes plain untruthful 'advertising' the pro-fluoridation lobby are peddling.

http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/dentist-shuns-sham-debate/1717175/
According to Qld Health Dentist Michael Foley - people ( like myself an invited speaker to the Bundaberg Fluoride Forum ) or at least comments attributed to Dr Foley by the News Mail suggest that myself, personally and the association I represent Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc, are dangerous to the people of Bundaberg and Queensland , that we are not scientific or credible, that we do not warrant or deserve respectability and that we are a dangerous and eccentric fringe group . He appears to suggest that we do not have a legitimate view and that a 2 sided debate would be a sham because of our presence.

Read more -

ANTI-FLUORIDE campaigner Terry Farrell is letterboxing Bundaberg households with flyers which he says will help people make an "informed decision."
Mr Farrell, a member of the Bundaberg - Say no to fluoride campaign, said the flyer drop in the run-up to the January 31 fluoride forum was completely independent of Bundaberg Regional Council.
"The flyer will have information about the forum and scientific information on fluoride," he said.
"The argument that there is no evidence supporting the anti-fluoride side is ridiculous."
It comes as Brisbane Dental Hospital director Michael Foley, who was guest speaker at the pro-fluoride meeting held last Thursday evening, has said he will not attend the council-run fluoride forum unless required by his superiors to do so.
"As a health professional I am not going to give credibility to views I find dangerous to the people of Queensland and Bundaberg," he said.
"This is not a 50:50 scientific debate. In a similar vein, the Australian Medical Association will never share a stage with the people who argue against childhood vaccinations. It gives dangerous and eccentric fringe groups a credibility and respectability that's completely unwarranted."
Dr Foley said he had been approached by numerous anti-fluoride organisations over the weekend including the Anti Fluoridation Association of Mildura (AFAM) who challenged him to debate Fluoride Action Network director Paul Connett.
In an email exchange obtained by the NewsMail, AFAM said Dr Foley was "a really 'tough guy' in front of a bunch of ignorant citizens, who are easy prey for a pro-fluoridation puppet like yourself".
In response, Dr Foley said: "The people of Bundaberg face serious dental health problems, and a 10-year wait for a check-up at the Bundaberg Base Hospital Dental Clinic is simply unacceptable".
"I prefer not to take part in any sham debate whose primary purpose is to legitimise views repeatedly rejected by every reputable health and scientific authority in Australia."
Matthew Griffiths, who arranged last Thursday's pro-fluoride meeting, said he was not surprised no one had agreed to speak at the January 31 event.
"No one is prepared to put their name to it at this stage," he said.
Fluoride forum and poll:
When: Thursday, January 31 at 6.30pm
Where: Civic Centre
Vote at: bundaberg.qld.gov.au

 

[sydboy007]

You wouldn't happen to be mates with Wendy McClelland of Dereel by chance ??

 

[Some Dude]

You wouldn't happen to be mates with Wendy McClelland of Dereel by chance ??

eh?

 

[Smurf1976]

How many people regularly drink significant quantities of tap water these days?

Most of the younger generation seem to see water as product that comes in a bottle and simply won't drink from the tap. If the shop's out of bottled water then they'll buy fizzy drinks or something else instead.

If people aren't drinking the tap water then it's irrelevant whether or not there's fluoride added to it.

 

[Julia]

Interesting point. My initial reaction was to compare it to vaccinations but herd immunity doesn't really factor in here. A better analogy might be iodised salt? Interesting to note that when I read the wikipedia entry, they mentioned fluoridated salt.

I don't think either the vaccination or iodised salt analogy is valid.
Vaccinations are not compulsory, although obviously are much encouraged because it has been mass vaccination that has essentially conquered dreadful diseases like polio, smallpox etc. People who do not believe in it are permitted not to have their children vaccinated.
Completely different from mass medication of the water supply.

Ditto iodised salt. This is simply available for those who wish to use it. There is no problem in buying various types of salt which have no iodine added. So again, not comparable with mass fluoridation of the water supply where the majority of the population has little choice but to drink from tap water, unless they have the funds to install reverse osmosis filters.

I had a guy apply for a job once, resume was incredible but I first realised that I had an interesting character when I brought him a glass of water and he asked "Is that tap water?". I said yes and ask why upon which he spent the next 5 minutes telling me about the problems with fluoride and how it is used in China to keep the population dumb etc.

Was an interesting interview.

So did his concerns prompt you to do any research about the potential damage to vulnerable individuals in consuming fluoride?

How many people regularly drink significant quantities of tap water these days?

Most of the younger generation seem to see water as product that comes in a bottle and simply won't drink from the tap. If the shop's out of bottled water then they'll buy fizzy drinks or something else instead.

If people aren't drinking the tap water then it's irrelevant whether or not there's fluoride added to it.

Exactly. Plus the fact that just a tiny proportion of this medicated water is actually consumed by people.
Most of it gets flushed down the toilet, used in showers and baths, and poured on to gardens.
How on earth is that cost effective?

 

[Some Dude]

So did his concerns prompt you to do any research about the potential damage to vulnerable individuals in consuming fluoride?

No, it flagged him as an interesting character so I gave him the job

 

[Calliope]

Ditto iodised salt. This is simply available for those who wish to use it.

Unless of course, if you eat bread. Then you have no choice unless you eat organic bread or make you own.

 

[Julia]

Unless of course, if you eat bread. Then you have no choice unless you eat organic bread or make you own.

So what is your point? You have the choice of making your own or buying organic, many varieties of which are freely available.
It's entirely different from mass medication of tap water.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

So what is your point? You have the choice of making your own or buying organic, many varieties of which are freely available.
It's entirely different from mass medication of tap water.

I just look at the science.

States which have fluoridation have less dental caries and no increase in the incidence or prevelance of the side effects pushed by the anti fluoridation brigade.

gg