More Debate
The info-bundle (toxicity/ who wants it/ side effects) was sent to Tony Abbott, the Federal Health Minister. I received from Helen Cameron from the Health Risk Policy and Advice; Population Health Division, an answer. She stated:
‘You make the assertions that fluoride is a dangerous and poisonous substance and that water fluoridation is ineffective in protecting teeth. I must point out that your research deals with only one side of a complex story and that fluoride at certain levels can form an important component of your nutrition.’
This claim of an important nutritional effect is pure fantasy invented by the pro-fluoride lobby. It is not difficult to understand why this claimed nutritional effect is non-existent, once you know what fluoride does inside your body.
To claim for a substance to have a nutritional effect, it must support and enhance life processes, because that is the core of a nutritional effect. But fluoride is doing the opposite: it obstructs life processes.
What exactly is fluoride doing? It plays havoc with enzyme systems. Enzymes are the biochemical facilitators of all our biochemical processes. In the absence of enzymes, which are proteins, these biochemical processes would not be possible. So, a substance that interferes with enzyme systems is obstructing biochemical processes. And, all these biochemical processes together form the foundation of all life processes. So, fluoride is a spanner in the works. Therefore it is a poison.
The awkward thing of fluoride is, that it is not specific about which enzyme systems it attacks. It has been called: a universal enzyme blocker. Wherever it ends up inside your body, there it is active. Yiamouyiannis, a researcher, who wrote a book about this blocking effect, called it The Aging Factor.
The other ugly fact about fluoride is that with daily intake it accumulates inside your body. So, when your are getting on in years you have accumulated quite some of it resulting in accelerated aging.
So much for the claimed nutritional effect of fluoride. Therefore the other statement that ‘benefits can be gained by adding a small amount of fluoride to bring it up to the ideal nutritional level (around 1 ppm)’ is also a fantasy.
Other points made in this letter were that fluoridation of water supplies has been based on scientific evidence accumulated and assessed over several decades. These 30 000 nonexistent studies apparently, and that it has been endorsed by 150 science and health organisations, the inverted pyramid of endorsements. Endorsement based on some other organisation’s endorsement, based again on another organisation’s endorsement etc., etc. and this all without any checking or own research. It is all spelled out in more detail under the section‘Who wants it.’
The last point made in this letter was that Australian Health Ministers have endorsed the final draft of Healthy Mouths Healthy Lives: Australia’s National Oral Health Plan 2004-2013. This plan recommends to extend fluoridation of public water supplies to communities across Australia with populations of 1000 or more.
If this is based on the perceived and non-existent nutritional effect of fluoride then for that reason alone this endorsement should be reviewed. And, if the aim is Healthy Mouths, then why not do something about the mouths alone and leave the rest of the body out of it. In other words: toothpaste. You cannot step around education. To put something into water as a panacea for mouth problems is simplistic and not working. Therefore this practice has been discontinued in most European countries.
This page is maintained by
The Rivermouth Action Group Inc
as a community service.
E-mail: activist@rag.org.au