Have the Greens Climbed Down Over Fluoride?

Pidge wrote:

Greens are here.

Ah yes, the GP Manifesto 2007, featuring the greatest climbdown in their history, if not in Irish political history. On March 13th, 2007, with a news release and press conference, the Greens were loudly asserting that they would stop fluoridation immediately -- for many good reasons.

Just 51 days later, the Manifesto appeared, with the following statement:

Quote :

The Green Party will:
• set up an independent study into the total fluoride
intake of the Irish population, as called for by the
Oireachtas Health Committee, and if the study
shows excess levels we will stop the current
fluoridation of drinking water;

That, as John Gormley knew only too well, was a recipe for keeping fluoridation going indefinitely.

What had happened in the meantime? The Irish Times had launched a concerted attack on the Greens over fluoridation, calling them names like "loony". And the Greens realized they might have to go into coalition with the pro-fluoridation party.

With that sort of movement from the Greens, it was not surprising that the Programme for Government, in June, provided a further watering down of the Greens' position and further copper-fastening of the unjust, unscientific policy of fluoridation.

Needless to say, no one in government has lifted a finger about the issue since.

Now it's late, so I'll desist from mentioning the other Green climbdowns.

I look forward to hearing about the other climbdowns. How many decent people have these cranks fooled. Putting a poison like flouride into the water supply can only be defended by those who have already overdosed on it. I am familiar with Tara where one girl down a hole is worth more than all the td's in the Dail combined. Groups of locals should get together and put up their own wind generators and avoid the petrol tax. That is the last thing Cowen in his merc would want.

soubresauts wrote:

Pidge wrote:

Greens are here.

Ah yes, the GP Manifesto 2007, featuring the greatest climbdown in their history, if not in Irish political history. On March 13th, 2007, with a news release and press conference, the Greens were loudly asserting that they would stop fluoridation immediately -- for many good reasons.

Just 51 days later, the Manifesto appeared, with the following statement:

Quote :

The Green Party will:
• set up an independent study into the total fluoride
intake of the Irish population, as called for by the
Oireachtas Health Committee, and if the study
shows excess levels we will stop the current
fluoridation of drinking water;

That, as John Gormley knew only too well, was a recipe for keeping fluoridation going indefinitely.

What had happened in the meantime? The Irish Times had launched a concerted attack on the Greens over fluoridation, calling them names like "loony". And the Greens realized they might have to go into coalition with the pro-fluoridation party.

With that sort of movement from the Greens, it was not surprising that the Programme for Government, in June, provided a further watering down of the Greens' position and further copper-fastening of the unjust, unscientific policy of fluoridation.

Needless to say, no one in government has lifted a finger about the issue since.

Now it's late, so I'll desist from mentioning the other Green climbdowns.

Bad teeth are mainly associated with poverty and smoking. What is the reason they are being so obstinate over fluoradisation? Who supplies it? They could do without putting aluminium in the water as well, the levels in the public supply around here go through the roof. It is toxic and it is only there for cosmetic reasons.

cactus flower wrote:

What is the reason they are being so obstinate over fluoradisation?

Irish fluoridation, which is a very big deal, is controlled by a few dentist academics, led by Clarkson, O'Mullane and Whelton. They are very powerful people, with big reputations. They would lose their reputations if fluoridation is stopped, and so far they have managed to bend the Government to their will.

The bottom line seems to be that when Irish fluoridation is seriously threatened, Washington steps in. There is a cabal of highly-placed people in the U.S. Public Health Service, with links to big industry and political leaders. It is well described in Christopher Bryson's exposé The Fluoride Deception.

There is so much pro-fluoride propaganda out there (and Edward Bernays was a key figure here as well) that most people just lap it up and refuse to believe there could be a problem. Try telling intelligent people that they've been duped by their dentists, doctors, government, and have been slowly poisoned for most of their lives. I'm still trying, like here, but...

Quote :

Who supplies it?

At the moment, a company in Shannon called Chemifloc. They had the contract briefly in the 1990s, lost it, and then won it back again. Look at this extraordinary letter from 11 years ago; you get an idea of what a dirty business it is.

Quote :

They could do without putting aluminium in the water as well, the levels in the public supply around here go through the roof. It is toxic and it is only there for cosmetic reasons.

You're right, and there's some frightening evidence of synergistic effects with fluoride.

Note that the Greens' current health policy is completely at variance with their 2007 manifesto and with the Programme for Government. The policy here states:

Quote :

The Green Party has always opposed the fluoridation of water supplies and the latest evidence emerging from the united States fully vindicates our position. In Government we would immediately ban water fluoridation.

It poses a question for all political parties: Should they be guided by their policies, their election manifesto, or by their coalition partners?

The last-named option seems to be the rule for the Greens. Or maybe they're following the principle of "Let's do nothing and hope nobody notices."

Well I oppose flouridation because of the horrible taste it leaves in the mouth. Has anyone contacted the Greens and asked them about their about-turn?

905 wrote:

Well I oppose flouridation because of the horrible taste it leaves in the mouth.

Really? I know a bunch of scientists who'd love to do some tests on you. The current scientific consensus is that you can't taste the fluoride.

Mind you, there are some people who are so sensitive to fluoride that they feel ill very soon after drinking fluoridated water. That is well documented in the scientific literature.

Quote :

Has anyone contacted the Greens and asked them about their about-turn?

When the manifesto was published I complained to John Gormley, with whom I had been in touch for a long time. He wrote back (on May 5th, 2007) as follows:

Quote :

Get lost. Never contact me again,ever.

john g

There are various lines of contact between anti-fluoride campaigners and the Greens, and many of the Greens would like to do something about it. The obstacle seems to be the Greens' overarching requirement of: "Don't annoy Brian Cowen." Or something like that.

Meanwhile, across the water... Compare this manifesto from the Greens in Bolton, for the British local elections last month.

Quote :

We are the only party that campaigns against the addition of fluoride to our water supply. Fluoridation robs you of your freedom to choose. Fluoride is toxic waste. It is more toxic than lead and only marginally less so than arsenic. This is what the Government want to put in your drinking water. It is illegal under the Poisons Act to administer poisonous or noxious substances to anyone and the Green Party will continue to campaign against it.

Of course the Irish Greens don't have to campaign; they're in government.

I recall an e-mail correspondence I had with Paul Gogarty in late 2006, with the general election looming. He was very insistent that the time to act on fluoridation would be when they got into government. No point in wasting energy on anti-fluoride campaigns when the urgent need was to make sure they got elected. Paul made a good job of his election campaign. But, but...

Quote :

When the manifesto was published I complained to John Gormley, with whom I had been in touch for a long time. He wrote back (on May 5th, 2007) as follows:

Quote :

Get lost. Never contact me again,ever.

john g

In the interests of accuracy, let's just point out here that "been in touch with for a long time" actually means "written to repeatedly and repetitiously about fluoride, and previously received replies, which became less courteous as time went by, until finally he told me to get lost as per above".

Far more of the exchange was published on p.ie, if you remember.

Very disappointing, ibis. I expected you to have more regard for the facts.

ibis wrote:

In the interests of accuracy, let's just point out here that "been in touch with for a long time" actually means "written to repeatedly and repetitiously about fluoride, and previously received replies, which became less courteous as time went by, until finally he told me to get lost as per above".

Far more of the exchange was published on p.ie, if you remember.

Accuracy my foot. I remember well, but do you?

Anyway, I haven't deleted any of the e-mails. You'll see your error in the following. It's the last e-mail I received from John Gormley (on March 17th, 2007) before the abovementioned conclusive exchange.

John Gormley wrote:

The pro fluoridation lobby are going all out to make sure i lose my seat -- so I need your help big time. Let´s start by meeting next week. I´m feeling the heat. Organise people to write sensible letters to the paper. No conspiracy theories etc.

In relation to Mullen [pro-fluoride dentist who was interviewed after John on Morning Ireland], he refused to debate the issue. He said he would come on after me.RTE said I could then answer his points. But then just stopped after he spoke. They apologised afterwards but of course it was too late.

If all the people who oppose fluoridation actually came out and gave practical help ie canvassing leasfletting etc it would help. I have put my political neck on the line against powerful people. And Now I'm paying the price. Having the irish Times writing editorials describing you as a loony in the run up to an election is not great.

I#m back in ireland on Tuesday.

regards

john g

On the basis of such entreaties, some of the most prominent anti-fluoridation campaigners went out canvassing door-to-door for Gormley. And we wrote letters to the Irish Times, but they weren't published.

Do you recall how many votes Gormley scraped in by?

soubresauts wrote:

Very disappointing, ibis. I expected you to have more regard for the facts.

ibis wrote:

In the interests of accuracy, let's just point out here that "been in touch with for a long time" actually means "written to repeatedly and repetitiously about fluoride, and previously received replies, which became less courteous as time went by, until finally he told me to get lost as per above".

Far more of the exchange was published on p.ie, if you remember.

Accuracy my foot. I remember well, but do you?

Anyway, I haven't deleted any of the e-mails. You'll see your error in the following. It's the last e-mail I received from John Gormley (on March 17th, 2007) before the abovementioned conclusive exchange.

John Gormley wrote:

The pro fluoridation lobby are going all out to make sure i lose my seat -- so I need your help big time. Let´s start by meeting next week. I´m feeling the heat. Organise people to write sensible letters to the paper. No conspiracy theories etc.

In relation to Mullen [pro-fluoride dentist who was interviewed after John on Morning Ireland], he refused to debate the issue. He said he would come on after me.RTE said I could then answer his points. But then just stopped after he spoke. They apologised afterwards but of course it was too late.

If all the people who oppose fluoridation actually came out and gave practical help ie canvassing leasfletting etc it would help. I have put my political neck on the line against powerful people. And Now I'm paying the price. Having the irish Times writing editorials describing you as a loony in the run up to an election is not great.

I#m back in ireland on Tuesday.

regards

john g

On the basis of such entreaties, some of the most prominent anti-fluoridation campaigners went out canvassing door-to-door for Gormley. And we wrote letters to the Irish Times, but they weren't published.

Do you recall how many votes Gormley scraped in by?

No, but I know one of them was mine. Thus far, you've done a brilliant job of persuading me to vote for him next time too.

On the toothpaste here there is a warning "If more then used for brushing is accidently swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away" Is the same warning there. Flouride is lethal and why is it in the water.

youngdan wrote:

On the toothpaste here there is a warning "If more then used for brushing is accidently swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away" Is the same warning there. Flouride is lethal and why is it in the water.

Hmm. Enough alcohol will kill you, or cough syrup, or any medicine - for that matter so will enough water. Everything is a poison at some dosage.

soubresauts wrote:

905 wrote:

Well I oppose flouridation because of the horrible taste it leaves in the mouth.

Really? I know a bunch of scientists who'd love to do some tests on you. The current scientific consensus is that you can't taste the fluoride.

Maybe it's my (unflouridated) water that tastes funny and what I think is flouride in mainstream water is just the taste of normal water?

ibis wrote:

Hmm. Enough alcohol will kill you, or cough syrup, or any medicine - for that matter so will enough water. Everything is a poison at some dosage.

Hmm. Are you not interested in how poisonous, ibis?

Micheál Martin's Fluoridation Forum report, in an unusually lucid passage, put it thus (page 112): "A standard tube of toothpaste contains about 125 gram of toothpaste (generally containing 1500 ppm fluoride); swallowing as little as one-quarter of a tube may be life-threatening for a one-year-old child."

The fluoride added to Irish water (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is even more toxic than toothpaste fluoride (source: the bible of fluoride toxicology -- "Fluorine intoxication" by Kaj Roholm, 1937).

How many countries in Europe are adding fluoride to water Soubresauts?

There was actually a case here a while back of a young person dying on a tv show after drinking too much water http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16660273/
However fluride is a very poisonous substance http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/lethal.html
What effects the quantities in the water have is open to debate but if a kid eats a tube of tootpaste he is a goner.

cactus flower wrote:

How many countries in Europe are adding fluoride to water Soubresauts?

Three: England, Ireland and Spain.

5 or 6 million people in England: Birmingham, West Midlands, and Tyneside

3 million in Ireland (every decent-sized water treatment plant from Inishowen to Skibbereen)

Spain? Hard to get accurate info; certainly not in Madrid, and I'm pretty sure not in Barcelona, Granada or Malaga either. Perhaps 4 million people fluoridated. I wrote a report about Spanish fluoridation a few years ago, here.

It's weird and worrying the way it has happened in Spain. For me, the most shocking thing was that the fluoridators managed to register hydrofluorosilicic acid as a food additive! It's so toxic that a couple of drops on your skin could kill you.

Partly the language barrier, I'd say. You can find lots of info in English, but little in Spanish. Also the Latin American connection, since most of the Spanish-speaking countries have been under the thumb of Washington all along.

We know what's happening in Ireland, but what to do? Since Ireland, uniquely in the world, has a mandatory fluoridation law, we need the politicians to act. All the political parties except FF/PD are more or less definitely against it. See here.

At present, there's a vow of silence, and not just in the Green Party.

LINK TO GUARDIAN REPORT

I am just adding this link from Soubresauts long discussion on CLR about fluoride, as it is quite up to date and by a medical practitioner.

cactus flower wrote:

LINK TO GUARDIAN REPORT

I am just adding this link from Soubresauts long discussion on CLR about fluoride, as it is quite up to date and by a medical practitioner.

I'd forgotten about the 'bodily fluids' stuff from Dr. Strangelove.

Must watch that movie again soon.

soubresauts wrote:

Irish fluoridation, which is a very big deal, is controlled by a few dentist academics, led by Clarkson, O'Mullane and Whelton. They are very powerful people, with big reputations. They would lose their reputations if fluoridation is stopped, and so far they have managed to bend the Government to their will.

The old cabal of dentist academics. Well known for their power in bending the government to their nefarious will. Do you really believe this stuff? I mean the world that I live in just doesn't work like that. Maybe the government listens to them because, I dunno, they know what they're talking about and stuff? I mean, do you think they should form public policy on the basis of
a) the considered opinions of the scientists who are considered to be the greatest experts by their peers?
b) a quick google of alarmist internet sites?

soubresauts wrote:

There is so much pro-fluoride propaganda out there (and Edward Bernays was a key figure here as well) that most people just lap it up and refuse to believe there could be a problem. Try telling intelligent people that they've been duped by their dentists, doctors, government, and have been slowly poisoned for most of their lives. I'm still trying, like here, but...

If they're in any way smart at all, they will instantly recognise the fact that the idea that the medical and dentistry professions are systematically and consciously duping the public is absurd and will file you in that part of their brain that is labeled "for amusement only".

Quote :

Who supplies it?
At the moment, a company in Shannon called Chemifloc. They had the contract briefly in the 1990s, lost it, and then won it back again. Look at this extraordinary letter from 11 years ago; you get an idea of what a dirty business it is.

What's extraordinary in any way at all about that letter? Our product is better than the competition because of "insert scary-sounding chemical" (and don't mention the dosage).

Quote :

You're right, and there's some frightening evidence of synergistic effects with fluoride.

I presume your reference to the word "evidence" really means "madcap stuff on the websites of snake-oil salesmen".

Is there any chance at all that we could have a discussion that it evidence-based and refers back to the findings of recognised scientific bodies/publications?

Only asking

cactus flower wrote:

Is there any chance at all that we could have a discussion that it evidence-based and refers back to the findings of recognised scientific bodies/publications?

Only asking

It would be one-sided, though.

It's funny how chekov and ibis resort to the ad hominems and misrepresentations.

I have already backed up every statement I have made, but they wouldn't be bothered checking. I'll do a bit of hand-holding for them when I have time...

The thing is, the issue is new to this site and not everyone would have had sight of previous discussions elsewhere. I understand it is frustrating to go over old ground for all parties. One option is not to re-engage.

Perhaps if there was a single study that you feel is the up-to-date "gold standard" for fluoride research you could give us a link and then anyone who wanted to could take the discussion from there.

When we are dealing with a matter that should be verifiable scientifically one way or the other, there should be no need for ad hominems, people should just cite their source showing that fluoride is
a. safe and effective
b. safe and ineffective
c. unsafe and ineffective
d. unsafe and effective.

Does that cover all the possibilities ?

If the (peer reviewed) studies are inconclusive or contradictory, then we may not be able to get an answer at this stage.

To borrow Chekov's own style of argumentation very brifely, he is as a love-struck adolescent before his favourite pop star pin up when it comes to scientists, medics and matters scientific. Fancies himself as an ultra-rational debater. However, when the evidence defeats him - or emotion overcomes him - he can, contrary-wise, and frequently does, resort to throwing around terms like 'tosh' - which are somewhat less than scientific or rational.

The remarkable thing is that Chekov refuses to consider the profit motive behind so much of the so-called scientific consensus. For an anarchist, this is pretty extraordinary. He is quite happy to acknowledge and condemn the profit motive's manifestations in other contexts but for some bizarre reason enitrely overlooks the possibility that it can be just as contaminating of the scientific world as it is the political.

He has no problem identifying either overt or subtle influences of the corporate sector on the media,eg, but when it comes to science - the claims of the corporate interestes that almost totally control it are beyond question. Like Lord Denning who could not contemplate the 'appalling vista' of the possibility that the police would be capable of deliberately jailing innocent men, so with Chekov and the men and women in white coats.

Another point of omission in his arguments is his failure to address the fundamental wrong of forcing Irish people to ingest a substance which many of them believe is poisonous and injurious to health. If the 'vitamin sellers' he so despises were suddenly to find themselves in the scientific ascendancy, (increasingly likely - there is a lot of money to be made after all) would he support any attempt by them to force people to take vitamins 'for their own good'?