Please send this on to your friends; they need to know the truth before the next state election. Colin has a Diploma in Biochemic Medicine and is ardently against compulsory water fluoridation. Whether the politicians will read it and take notice is another matter. Let’s hope that prior to the next election they will take their blinkers off and their ear plugs out. This is of course wishful thinking on my part. However, we will continue in the meantime to elucidate the fluoride deception for the Australian people.
It is unmistakably and visibly clear that our politicians, government health bureaucrats and most of our dentists take their ethics from the work manual of the Nazis, which is: tell the population only what you want them to know, treat them like mushrooms and feed them BS. – Werner
* * * * *
I quote, Colin Bishop.You still insist on poisoning my water with silicofluoride? Watch these four videos and then ask yourself “is water fluoridation a wise decision?” If you believe that it is wise then I would ask you “who is telling you” and what material are they showing you? Are you sure that it “will do no harm” – to anyone or anything!
Also take into account that this is a cumulative poison – it builds up! The only way to excrete this poison from your body is through the kidneys – it should be worrying you as 1 in 3 Australians are at risk of developing a kidney disease and the rate of diabetes is growing as fast as cancer!
VIDEO:
FLUORIDE --- YESTERDAYS MEDICINE
Professional Perspectives: Fluoride in Tap WaterAustralia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace, an Australian documentary.
http://www.firewaterfilm.com/watchfilm.htm
This could be your last wake-up call before the next election – stick with Bligh and Jeannette Young at your peril! This wakeup call could be your last before the Fluoridegate starts to look for those responsible. There is no law that can protect you from litigation if you have acted negligently, you must consider both side of fluoride issue not just what the government want you to vote for.
Ask yourself why just about everyone in the Queensland parliament voted against the compulsory introduction of fluoride back in 2004 – and then would you consider why the whole of the government changed their minds? Most speakers in 2004 pointed out that it was wrong and unethical to mass medicate public water supplies, and the LGAQ still maintain this perspective, so what information were you given that made you vote for it in 2008??
* * * * * *
Incredible Documentation Indicating Suppression of Safety Information – hiding the truth.
According to the Fluoride Action Network:
"Law firms are now reviewing old and new documents believed to highlight a pattern of attempts to curtail discussions on fluoride toxicity and downplay the importance of professionals personally reviewing scientific reports about fluorides… One such document is an explosive transcript of a 1951 meeting of state dental directors on file at the Library of Congress."
In this meeting, state dental leaders were told:
"The question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it altogether. Just pass it over. 'We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing tooth decay,' you say, and go on. If it becomes an issue, then you will have to take it over, but don't bring it up yourself."
Additionally, a white paper issued by the American Dental Association in 1979 states:
"Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports of laboratory and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants in the promotion program and that nonparticipation is an overt neglect of professional responsibility."
Fluoride Action Network quotes Daniel G. Stockin, a career public health professional opposed to water fluoridation:
"I think it's pretty clear that the public, the media, and health providers were given soothing talking points about fluoridation, and in many cases dissuaded from personally looking at toxicity data.
How can CDC oral health professionals in a department that has promoted fluoridation for decades be objective, let alone competent to assess research and draw conclusions about the toxicity of fluorides on thyroid glands, kidneys, and the pineal gland?
There is a reason we're seeing calls for Fluoridegate investigations. The legal community and the media are waking up to this. I believe jurors will see a clear pattern of disinformation, half-truths, misdirection, and omission of critical material facts concerning harm from fluoridated drinking water."
I can’t see how the premier can give you any indemnity if you have been lying? Can you? Colin Bishop. Unquote.
My thought for today. – Werner
"WE the people are putting our elected leaders on notice... if you abuse your power and do not govern "for the people, by the people and accountable to the people" WE will elect honourable leaders who will!" - Colin Bishop
According to the Fluoride Action Network:
"Law firms are now reviewing old and new documents believed to highlight a pattern of attempts to curtail discussions on fluoride toxicity and downplay the importance of professionals personally reviewing scientific reports about fluorides… One such document is an explosive transcript of a 1951 meeting of state dental directors on file at the Library of Congress."
In this meeting, state dental leaders were told:
"The question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it altogether. Just pass it over. 'We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing tooth decay,' you say, and go on. If it becomes an issue, then you will have to take it over, but don't bring it up yourself."
Additionally, a white paper issued by the American Dental Association in 1979 states:
"Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports of laboratory and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants in the promotion program and that nonparticipation is an overt neglect of professional responsibility."
Fluoride Action Network quotes Daniel G. Stockin, a career public health professional opposed to water fluoridation:
"I think it's pretty clear that the public, the media, and health providers were given soothing talking points about fluoridation, and in many cases dissuaded from personally looking at toxicity data.
How can CDC oral health professionals in a department that has promoted fluoridation for decades be objective, let alone competent to assess research and draw conclusions about the toxicity of fluorides on thyroid glands, kidneys, and the pineal gland?
There is a reason we're seeing calls for Fluoridegate investigations. The legal community and the media are waking up to this. I believe jurors will see a clear pattern of disinformation, half-truths, misdirection, and omission of critical material facts concerning harm from fluoridated drinking water."
I can’t see how the premier can give you any indemnity if you have been lying? Can you? Colin Bishop. Unquote.
My thought for today. – Werner
"WE the people are putting our elected leaders on notice... if you abuse your power and do not govern "for the people, by the people and accountable to the people" WE will elect honourable leaders who will!" - Colin Bishop
