Premier Anna Bligh participated in an OurSay forum in December, where you asked the questions. Here are her responses to the three most popular submissions.
Anna Bligh says in in her video: "I have to govern for everybody in Queensland". Why then is she not listening to the overwhelming number of voices who are saying "NO" to water fluoridation?
Yes it's time to bring all those poor excuses of human beings to account for their mass betrayal of the Queensland people, by keeping Big Pharma raking in billions, courtesy of mass new diagnoses annually of terminal and chronic illnesses via mass fluoridation.This is a Conspiracy to cull the population and it reaches the highest levels of our society. MP Rob Messenger Qld Independent Member for Burnett wants fluoridation banned. He gets my vote!
WITH RESPECT......WE DO NOT REQUIRE A REFERENDUM.... WE REQUIRE A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL INTO ALL THOSE COMPLICIT IN POISONING THE PEOPLE OF QUEENSLAND.... THOSE WHO HAVE LIED....COMMITTED FRAUD.... IT IS TIME THEY WERE BOUGHT TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR CRIMES..... SEE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.... READ SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL ( Sodium Fluoride and its effects on our body organs. Please note, that Sodium Fluoride is cumulative. It is an Enzyme Inhibitor that also causes Fetal Deaths, Bone Cancer in Boys and Infertility.) READ THIS ARTICLE BY PROFESSOR PAUL CONNETT WHO EXPOSES THE FRAUD.... - Australian Fluoridation Fraud - Joining the Dots - Paul Connett www.fluoridealert.org November 10, 2008 I would like to draw your attention to four events in Australia which I believe demonstrate the corruption of science needed to propagate the discredited practice of water fluoridation in that country. Just join the dots. Here are the four events: A letter from Pieta-Ray Laut, Executive Director, Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) to Professor Warwick Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), dated 20 February 2007. Note the NHMRC is an agency of the Australian government. See letter at end. The publication of the NHMRC report in November 2007: A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation. An article attacking opponents of fluoridation by Jason Armfield in the online journal Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, December, 2007, titled: When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature – and my response to it at this same site. The forcing through of mandatory water fluoridation on Queensland in February 2008 by Premier Anna Bligh. This of course, can be coupled with other ongoing efforts to force fluoridation on communities in NSW and Victoria, without giving them a chance to vote on the matter. Elsewhere I have commented at some length on the "Easleyan" hatchet job on people opposed to fluoridation by Jason Armfield, and readers know well of our fruitless efforts to try to inform Premier Bligh on the dangers and ineffectiveness of fluoridation before she forced the practice on Queensland. Here I will focus on the NHMRC (2007) review an the PHAA letter. The NHMRC (2007) report. This report is being cited around the fluoridating world as the final word on the "safety and effectiveness" of water fluoridation. However, as far as addressing health concerns, a careful reading of this report indicates that at best, it is a work of professional incompetence or, at worst, an example of scientific fraud, in which scientific information is manipulated to support a preordained conclusion. There are six fundamental problems with this report. Read full report. http://australianfluorideaction.com/lies-fraud/the-fraud/ -
Dear Anna, The question was, 'Will you hold a referendum to allow the people to decide if they want fluoridation in Queensland?' I didn't hear the referendum word. I have, as you suggest, obtained a copy of the 2007 NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) Review into the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation. This report has obvious faults. You would be aware of 'The Case Against Fluoride' - Paul Connett, Beck & Micklem. Just on the point of referendum, there is a good book - 'Fluoride in Australia A Case to Answer' by Wendy Varney. In the 50's the NHMRC put forward provisos in relation to fluoridation. The condition was that "A large proportion of the community should desire that fluoride be added to the water supply, or alternatively, a substantial proportion of the community does not oppose the addition of fluoride to the water. This reflected some compromise for those who cherish civil liberties." A little further on reads, "However, the Council has since decided fluoridation is not a matter for popular debate. It opposes suggestions that a referendum should be held, or public attitudes taken into account." This brings me to the question of the Australian Constitution. (Chapter 1, Part 5-Powers of the Parliament, Section 51-60, Section 51- Legislative Powers of the Parliament) The pertinent part is 'Parliament cannot authorize any form of civil conscription in relation to medical or dental services'. One would say that adding fluoride to the water is not to treat the water, ...but to treat teeth. If you are treating teeth to effect a physiological change, it is indeed a dental service. You make mention of other cities being fluoridated over 4 years ago. A graph showing every major city of Australia was compiled (Diesendorf 1990) showing decay in 10 year old children for 1977 and again for 1987. Over the 10 year period the figures showed decay rates had gone down in every city. All towns, except Brisbane, had fluoridation. However, the graph showed the same trend whether the city was fluoridated or not fluoridated. Perhaps better oral hygiene and better diets are the reason? Why I ask, have so many European countries now removed or never introduced fluoride? You have to admit there is a lot of scientific information out there against the implementation of fluoride. If in doubt, leave it out! The fluoridation product being used is not natural fluoride which was suggested by researcher Dr. H. Trendley Dean many, many years ago as possibly being associated with fewer cavities. May I suggest a government report as further reading. The 1989-1991 Australian Capital Territory 'Inquiry into Water fluoridation in the ACT and the Dissenting Report by Dennis R. Stevenson, MLA. The Dissenting report is some 160 pages. I was quiet embarrassed with your video reply and can only hope you are doing your own homework on this controversial subject. It appears your Health Department is on a set agenda, and certainly not providing you with all the facts. Subject to formal public awareness from both sides, let your community decide via referendum. What are you afraid of....?
Neurosurgeon, Dr Russell Blaylock, in his Blaylock Wellness Report Vol 5, No 1 said, "There is no justification for water fluoridation, since a number of very large studies have shown no reduction in cavities with such treatments. In fact, compelling evidence indicates that aluminum in water is associated with a significantly increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, especially if the water is fluoridated. Fluorine is a very reactive element and readily combines with aluminum to dramatically increase absorption of both chemicals from the intestines and drive the compound into the brain. Both fluoride and aluminum are neurotoxic, that is, they are toxic to the brain.”
Premier, Mass medicating the Queensland population with toxic waste does not fit with the Legislation wording of 'safe'. You say Qld was behind the other states in introducing fluoride. The lack of it was the reason I chose this state. You have created the perfect conditions for Poor health for the poor and uninformed, and great expense and inconvenience for those of us who are aware of the dangers of putting hydrofluorosilicic acid anywhere near the human body, who are now forced to buy r/o filters or bottled water. Not to mention the environmental impact of your decision. I suppose the next thing will be to tax bottled water? And ban r/o filters so we comply? You will realise your mistake when your grandchildren finish up with brown cracking teeth and refuse to smile. Or when you break your brittle hip? Too late then to do the right thing and repeal your draconian law?
Premier we have a stand-off it seems! Either Geoff Pain's research references are inaccurate or their source has drawn erroneous conclusions or your own advisors are not exposing you to the most recent and thus relevant findings in this debate? Solution? Let the People decide by Referendum at the imminent State election.
Fluoridation questions are anti-scientific: World Health Organisation report that finds water the smallest contribution to fluoride intake: 3.5 Estimated total exposure and relative contribution of drinking-water Levels of daily exposure to fluoride depend mainly on the geographical area. In the Netherlands, the total daily intake is calculated to be 1.4–6.0 mg of fluoride. Food seems to be the source of 80–85% of fluoride intake; intake from drinking-water is 0.03–0.68 mg/day and from toothpaste 0.2–0.3 mg/day. For children, total intake via food and water is decreased because of lower consumption. Intake of food and water relative to body weight is higher, however, and can be further increased by the swallowing of toothpaste or fluoride tablets (up to 3.5 mg of fluoride per day) (Slooff et al., 1988).
Townsville Health Service District residents are admitted at a higher rate than people from other parts of Queensland for potentially avoidable conditions including asthma, congestive heart failure, convulsions and epilepsy, congestive obstructive pulmonary disease, dental conditions (***), ear, nose and throat conditions, and pyelonephritis. A number of these diseases are associated with and/or exacerbated by Fluoride. http://www.health.qld.gov.au/townsville/Documents/executive/e_csp_bgp3_demogr.pdf Anna Bligh was demonstrably wrong when she stated "There is no evidence that any disease or illness or condition is more prevalent in Townsville, or Sydney or Melbourne than it is in any city without fluoride."
