Tactical Analysis: The Manipulation of Deniliquin



When the proponents of water fluoridation are not afforded the luxury offered by state mandates to force the measure, they instead devise cunning, multifaceted strategies for the manipulation of individual councils and communities. In their unbending arrogance, they enjoy publishing the results of their successful campaigns, so that other proponents can adopt similar models. These publications offer unique insights for opponents of water fluoridation, upon which they may devise preemptive information countermeasures in their respective communities.

In this post, we draw attention to one of the more brazen papers of recent times, by Sivaneswaran et al. (2010), which lays out the strategies used by the NSW Health Department in their manipulation of the 2004 Deniliquin plebiscite, which secured a vote in favor of water fluoridation.

The Sivaneswaran et al. (2010) paper grows ever more relevant, especially in light of the developing situation in Queensland, where the policy of state-enforced fluoridation was rescinded in late 2012. Despite a desperate push by the pro-fluoridation cartel to see the re-introduction of the previous policy, numerous councils have seized upon the opportunity to halt the injection of fluoridation chemicals into their water supplies. Queensland Health (the pro-fluoridation equivalent of the NSW Health Department) has dispatched its best ‘hit teams’ to various communities, hoping to reverse the anti-fluoridation tide. The tactics they are using in this effort mirror those used in Deniliquin NSW.

Sivaneswaran et al. (2010) – Full text

Tactics of manipulation

“The skillful use of media to educate the community on the benefits of water fluoridation”.

“Disseminating contemporary local data to demonstrate oral health disparities with neighboring fluoridated townships”.

“A well-established lobbying machine to mobilize the community”.

Concluding remarks

“Our experiences in Deniliquin show that it is possible to influence the outcome of fluoridation plebiscites in favor of water fluoridation in the face of intense opposition”.


“The skillful use of media” is just a fancy way of saying “using propaganda”. The only way the promoters of fluoridation can ‘justify’ the intervention for which they lobby, is to “demonstrate” that oral health is worse in non-fluoridated areas as opposed to fluoridated areas. Given that “it is NSW Health policy to continue water fluoridation”, there would be a clear conflict between the policy and the data, if the data were to reveal superior oral health in a non-fluoridated community (as recently witnessed in Oregon USA).

The evidence for fluoridation’s alleged effectiveness is acknowledged as poor, internationally (CRD 2003; Cheng et al. 2007; Chalmers 2010). Therefore, in light of NSW Health’s obvious conflict of interest, “contemporary local data” cannot be trusted when produced by this department to “demonstrate oral health disparities”. For their policy to be fully extended and implemented, the data ‘must’ show the ‘correct’ disparities.

As for tiny rural NSW communities, “a well-established lobbying machine” ensures a perpetual and overwhelming monopoly of influence in favour of the pro-fluoridation juggernaut, which small-town opponents could never hope to match financially. This monopoly does not exist to promote truth, good science, or sound ethical reasoning – but rather, is designed and utilised for the sole purpose of manipulating councils and communities to support an archaic, fraudulent practice.

However, no amount of media influence, money, slick propaganda or false ‘white coat authority’ can ever be a substitute for truth. Truth and open debate must be avoided at costs, if the “well-established lobbying machine” is to succeed.

Learning from Deniliquin’s experience

The best hope for a non-fluoridated community to remain so, is to become aware of the deviously manipulative tactics of the pro-fluoridation cartel, well before the formal push for fluoridation begins. Sivaneswaran et al. (2010), in their arrogance, gloat about their Deniliquin victory, but in doing so they provide a blueprint for anti-fluoridation campaigners to launch preemptive strikes within their respective communities.

Resources for rebuttal


Keeping the debate focused exclusively on teeth is both the greatest strength, and the greatest weakness of the pro-fluoridation propaganda merchants. The evidence for fluoridation’s claimed benefits is actually very weak. Any local anti-fluoridation campaign that is able to preemptively approach its local media, council, political representatives, health professionals and community organisations with this information, will inevitably bend the barrel of the one and only loaded gun of the pro-fluoridation lobby. The three videos and accompanying web page below offer vital information and counter-arguments to the claims of “effectiveness”.

Video #1 | Video #2 | Video #3 | Learn more

Health effects

We mentioned above that the greatest strength of the pro-fluoridation mafia is its ability to limit the debate to teeth, whilst ignoring or dismissing other potential health effects. Unfortunately, the brainwashing of the masses and the professional community is so extensive, it can be extremely difficult to get people to view the human body as more than a ‘walking set of teeth’, after the word “fluoride” has entered the discussion. The “well-established lobbying machine” has achieved its desired outcomes on this score. Nevertheless, now that you are armed with the evidence for ineffectiveness, we will also add a few more weapons to your arsenal that will empower you to move the conversation beyond that of simply teeth.

Health Effects Database | Margin of safety | Health Canada criticisms | Biochemistry & toxicology | Research gaps

Detailed reading/further research

The Case Against Fluoride is a 2010 book by Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck & Dr. Spedding Micklem, which, according to Dr. Vyvyan Howard, is “a well-researched, cogently argued, and very readable text that summarises historical, political, ethical, toxicological, and epidemiological scientific data behind drinking water fluoridation… approachable by non-scientists and specialists, although an extensive technical bibliography is provided for those who wish to delve deeper”.

We recommend this book as an absolutely essential resource in educating local communities about all aspects of the fluoridation debate. Most importantly, this book will empower your community – councillors, health professionals and everyone else – to recognise the lies, spin and otherwise devious tactics of the “well-established lobbying machine” of the pro-fluoridation mafia, when they target your town. The more hands you can get this book into, before the assault on your town starts, the more likely it will be that enough individuals will be well-informed and confident enough to not only identify and assess the lies of NSW Health and others, but actually DEFEAT them.

Publisher overview | Dr. Howard’s review | Dr. Connett’s introduction | Extract


In the process of smugly gloating about their 2004 Deniliquin victory, Sivaneswaran et al. (2010) have shot themselves and their masters in the proverbial foot. They have notified Australia and the rest of the fluoridating world, of their tactics. They have confirmed and clarified how they use media manipulation, selective data dissemination and crude lobbying mechanisms to ‘massage’ communities into accepting their policy. By doing so, they have provided opponents of fluoridation with a golden opportunity to formulate more advanced/targeted preemptive grassroots campaigns of education and awareness.


Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

18 thoughts on “Tactical Analysis: The Manipulation of Deniliquin

  1. We continue to be amazed by the brainwashed unthinking people who think it’s okay and safe to consume hazardous waste pollutants & co-contaminants in our water supplies and hence food chain – these people are incapable of thinking things through clearly. Here is a little bit for them to start realising the whole scam with water fluoridation is harmful and shocking.


    Fluoridegate  – The Film  http://www.fluoridegate.org/ USA EPA shredded evidence of harm and fired Chief Scientist/Toxicologist in an attempt to silence him. Also here > http://youtu.be/zpw5fGt4UvI

    Dr David Kennedy DDS speaking about how the EPA was ordered to lie about the safety of water fluoridation because it was/is bought and sold by industry: Water Fluoridation Regulations Are Based on Lies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrfORyiET3o

    In addition, this little tip of the iceberg information on the disgraceful long term ‘fraud’/’scam’ of water fluoridation/pollution; doesn’t this say it all ?

    The National Health Medical Research Council NHMRC DO NOT DO ORIGINAL RESEARCH INTO FLUORIDATION – The Fluoridation Fraud

    Australian Government removed Toothpaste S5 poison labels !
    Fluoride toothpaste was registered as a S5 poison
    The N.H.M.R.C. in their book “The Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation” p.131., explained the need to examine poison regulations concerning fluoride toothpaste which was registered as an ‘ S5 POISON’ as printed on the package.
    The Answer by N.H.M.R.C.
    Fluoride Toothpaste an S5 poison was reclassified as “Cosmetic for sales regulations”.
    Here we have the Australian Government’s professional and honest sorcery of changing an S5 POISON into a safe benign product by altering its scientific health category into a cosmetic by reclassification!
    S5 Poison labels on fluoride toothpaste removed to help commercial sales.
    All S5 POISON LABELS on fluoride toothpaste were removed, not for your health reason, no, it was to help commercial SALES that superceded the health and rightful Government protection of Australian people.

    Drinking, eating & bathing in hazardous waste
    Hydrofluoric Acid – Acutely toxic chemical



    Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses – Freedom of Information – South Australia Water Corp. Raw fluoridation chemical analyses of South Australia’s drinking water, listed below. This data has been scanned from original documents provided to Sapphire Eyes Productions by Dr. Andrew Harms and Ann Bressington. These documents show the toxic, heavy metal contaminants contained in the chemicals used to fluoridate your drinking water. These include lead, arsenic, mercury, lead, thallium, beryllium, uranium, and more. ‘FIRE WATER’ FILM SOURCE: http://tiny.cc/9oj4g  
    Source:    http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/ Watch:  http://www.firewaterfilm.com
    The Chemistry of Water Fluoridation – What is Water Fluoridation? http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-chemistry-of-water-fluoridation.pdf

    Hydrofluoric Acid – Acutely toxic chemical

    Explaining the truth about “water fluoridation” and the phosphate mining industry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZ15m-D_n8&feature=share

    Fluosilicic Acid. TOXNET profile from Hazardous Substances Data Base http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/fluosilicic.acid.toxnet.hsd.htm

    Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses

    Hydrofluorosilicic Acid Origins http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/

    Dangerous Substances Regulations The Dangerous Substances Regulations 2001, prescribe water quality standards in relation to certain substances in surface waters, e.g., rivers, lakes and tidal waters. The substances include certain pesticides (atrazine, simazine, tributyltin), solvents (dichloromethane, toluene, xylene), metals (arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc) and certain other compounds (cyanide and fluoride). The Regulations give further effect to the EU Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EC) and give effect to certain provisions of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). http://www.lcc.ie/Environment/Water_Quality/Dangerous_Substances_Regulations/
    Here is some additional information that is very damning against water fluoridation.

    As we all know:

    “Fluorine-containing gases are produced as a by-product in the manufacturing of fertilizer, phosphoric acid, phosphates and other phosphorous-containing materials from minerals such as fluorapatite and phosphate rock.

    When such minerals are reacted with an acid, such as phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, or hydrochloric acid, which treatment is common in preparing useful materials from these minerals, silicon tetrafluoride is liberated….

    The liberated silicon tetrafluoride is usually recovered by absorption in water.
    The silicon tetrafluoride reacts with water to form fluosilicic acid (H2SiF6).
    The acid is generally an undesirable by-product having little economic value.
    The fluorine-containing off gases from the manufacture of various products from phosphatic starting materials are recovered usually for the sole purpose of preventing their escape to the atmosphere.
    The fluorine-containing off gases results in serious atmospheric pollution problems, since the gases are both corrosive and toxic.
    It is therefore desirable that a worthwhile use be found for these waste materials….”

    United States Patent Office

    Patented Sept, 6, 1966


    Fluoride and the kidneys

    Fluoride toxic to kidney

    Fluoridation of community water/kidney disease
    There are two areas of concern regarding the nephrotoxic potential of *fluoride *. A small and inclusive amount of research suggests that *fluoridation of community water actually causes kidney disease*. Kidney   *damage * to tubular function and structure, and reduction in glomerular filtration rate occurred in residents of endemic *fluoride * areas [2 http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/gfm663v1#GFM663C2%5D and anecdotal cases of  *fluoride *intoxication
     [3 http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/gfm663v1#GFM663C3%5D suggested a causal relationship between  fluoride   intake and renal failure/ 
© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. 
    For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org               


    Dialysis Water Pre-treatment   
     TABLE 1: Hæmodialysis Risks associated with Water Contamination;    my comment: we should all be receiving safe water. 



    SL – A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride See VII Fluoride & the Kidneys


    International Society for Fluoride Research Inc.



    Extract: 2 Policy
. 2.1 Water Fluoridation The Australian Dental Association recommends :
    2.1.5 That Governments must adopt water fluoridation as part of Health Policy and actively promote its introduction, where it is feasible, as a public health measure.
    Full document: ADA: “Governments MUST adopt water fluoridation as part of Health Policy and actively promote its introduction, where it is feasible, as a public health measure.”

    WHY DO THE ADA (& AMA) HAVE THE POLITICAL POWER AND CONTROL TO CHRONICALLY POISON A NATION?? With decade$ of water fluoridation/pollution and we are in dental crisis, why do you think the ADA & their associate$/interest$ continue with this fraud?

    The continuing fraud of water fluoridation/pollution is obscene:
    Fluoridation & The Web Of Deceit – Conflicts of Interests

    The Girl Against Fluoride Independent Researcher and Activist – Ireland –
    Professor Denis O Mullane is Vice Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Irish Expert Body of fluorides & health. Although he calls himself “an independent objective research worker in the field of Dental Public Health”, this man has promoted water fluoridation around the world for many years. He has pushed water fluoridation in South Africa along with Seamus Hickey.
    Despite Mr Mullane’s pro fluoride bias, in 2002 Michael Martin gave him a grant estimated at a million to investigate the benefits and risks of water fluoridation.

    The British Fluoridation Society includes Denis Mullane in their information leaflets. He is also connected with the British Nutrition Foundation – this was set up in the 1960’s by sugar & pharmaceutical companies such as Tate and Lyle ltd, Cadburys, Proctor & Gamble. Denis Mullane’s uncle was chief chemist of Irish Sugar Company.

    Mr Mullane is part of a group rewriting a document on “Fluorides and Oral Health”, for the WHO. This is one of the men who continues to say that water fluoridation is safe & yet the chemicals used in water fluoridation in Ireland were banned for their use as a wood preservative.

    UK Government Health Departments fund the British Fluoridation Society 

    The hasty resignation of Andy Burnham from the British Fluoridation Society to Secretary of State for Health !!   does not signal a retreat over the imposition of water fluoridation.
    Doug Cross    15 June, 2009
    Mr Burnham’s position as Vice-President of the BFS was of course utterly incompatible with his new appointment as Secretary of State for Health. But his hasty severing of his embarassing link with the BFS has done nothing to moderate his approach to water fluoridation. His Liverpool speech followed his relinquishment of the BFS post, but was peppered with the tired and discredited claims of the pro-fluoridation lobby.

    REPORT: Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective?

    Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 – Political Donations – list includes ADA & AMA
    ADA 48th AMA 24th http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=a
    ADA http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000105
    AMA http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000068

    Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective?

    The so called ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ of the ADA who force these hazardous waste pollutants known as ‘water fluoridation’ down our throats. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/australian-dental-association-pulls-raunchy-sexist-video-taken-at-conference-from-its-website/story-fnihsrf2-1226869176319

    Revealing How Dentists Profit By Abusing Children – In ‘Drilling for Dollars,’ a local TV reporter presented shocking visual and audio testimony about a situation in which children were being needlessly treated and harmed because of corporate greed. 2009 http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100963/Revealing-How-Dentists-Profit-By-Abusing-Children.aspx

  2. Go back to the 1973 Fluoridation Act. WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE A RIDER WHICH PREVENTS ANYONE WHO SUFFERS SIDE EFFECTS FROM FLUORIDE (OR CO-contaminants), FROM BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS WITH THOSE WHO PROVIDE IT? If it is so good for us, why is there a need for this statement????? I wish the pro-fluoridationists could come up with an answer when I know a government doctor argued with government that one of his patients would die if they had to ingest this poison. I have the letter. It is not good enough for people to suggest we try and take another way of avoiding it. The costs are prohibitive getting water tanks, plumbing, cost my friends upwards of $40,000 money she didn’t have, fortunately a cousin who is a plumber did the work au gratis; nevertheless we still then have to avoid food and veg which contains this lead, arsenic, mercury, et al very often need to grow this ourselves.

  3. I guess all those randomized control trials performed in this study here means nothing “Rugg-Gunn AJ, Do L. Effectiveness of water fluoridation in caries prevention. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012”. Please note that this analysis includes studies done in countries from all over the world. Regardless of how the government inefficiently spends the money to set up fluoridation please don’t try to discredit the positive effects of fluoride in very low concentration like .7 to 1.0ppm. Everything needs to be done in moderation anything done in excess will kill you and with fluoride i don’t think this is the case. Most of the evidence posted shows no research data proving .7-1.0ppm of fluoride to cause any harm out weighing benefits of stopping dental caries. The problem is many Australian are not yet dentally aware enough to not have water fluoridation and especially in the rural towns. Show me concrete data of the negative effects from the amount of fluoride we receive other than the anecdotal evidence posted above. Just saying?? Anyways…more harm will come to someone from eating excessive amount of tuna due to high mercury content then drinking lots of fluoridated water!!!

  4. For your readers to please distribute widely and help all of us to stop this chronic poisoning of our population, pets and environment with hazardous waste known as ‘water fluoridation’ :-

    Brief overview of water fluoridation_pollution 11 September, 2013. Diane Drayton Buckland


  5. One of our readers just emailed us, in response to Sivaneswaran et al. (2010):

    “Insisting on neutral wording for the plebiscite is probably worth putting on your check list. In Deniliquin the question was “Do you support the addition…?” I think it’s well known that if people are asked to agree with or support things, their first instinct is to say yes. This could account for a lot of the majority at Deniliquin. A more proper wording would be “Should fluoride be added to the water supply?””

    We agree. Good point.

  6. My apologies AFAM if you could correct my typo in ‘incestuous’ please. Thank you.

  7. The Fluoridologists from the Church of Fluoridology – there appears to be allegedly, an incestuous relationship in the Church of Fluoridology and lot of crooks delighted to be part of chronically poisoning the population, pets and environment with dangerously corrosive S6 /7 Corrosive 8 hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants known as ‘water fluoridation’. The insanity and greed of this must be stopped by The People for The People. None of these bloody crooks in Governments and their interests give a damn and we have the problem of a lot of the population are blindly trusting and gullible.

    Fluoridation is an absolute Fraud and Failure. After decades of widespread fluoridation Australia wide in dental crisis – headlines such as DENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM IN DECAY – Dr Deborah Cole is chief executive officer of Dental Health Services Victoria/ REPORT WARNS $10B NEEDED TO FIX DENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM February 28, 2012 and many more.
    Your reputations and credibility will suffer if any of you continue with this chronic poisoning of the population and environment with these hazardous waste pollutants known as ‘water fluoridation’. Many ask why are Dentists and their interests (not to mention Corporate sponsored Dental Schools at Universities !) fighting to the death to force to keep and/or add these dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants in our water supplies ( & hence food chain) if it is supposed to be so effective and reduce caries by 60% – because it is not effective and not safe – these pollutants fluorosilicic acid, hexafluorosilicate being used in many industries such as glass etching, wood preservative, sterilization, electroplating, acidizing, rust removal in textile field, lead refining, tanneries, fluorosilicate salt, in veterinary fields to combat insect infestation. Now how any of you could be so gullible, complacent or dare I say uncaring that you ignore this and continue to put the population in Harm’s Way, you will live to regret such a shocking and negligent decision. We must all take action for the health and safety of our population and that is to call an immediate and irrevocable ban Queensland and Australia wide on every Fluoridation/pollution plant.


    The ADA asked for $200,000 and received $220,000 from Bligh’s Health Minister, Stephen Robertson to promote ‘fluoridation’ and their colleagues at the AMA sent a letter to Dr. Jeannette young, Chief Health Officer Queensland Health extract from FOI :-

    “The AMA believes the ‘strategic approach’ referred to in your letter must be for Government to mandate water fluoridation throughout the State. The approach to encourage individual councils to adopt fluoridation of their own volition has failed.”

    Some view this allegedly, as tantamount to ‘conspiring’ to ‘mandate’ ‘water fluoridation’ and you must take no other action but to ban ‘water fluoridation/pollution’ urgently, irrevocably and for all time.

    These letters from ADA and AMA form part of this Report and can be accessed on the link hereunder – referred to page 88/89.
    Download Full Report > http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/report-water-fluoridation-pollution-must-end-diane-drayton-buckland-independent-researcher-14th-january-2013.pdf


    Queensland Fluoridation Committee – Queensland Water Fluoridation Act 2008 – Act No. 12 of 2008 Page 43 Part 7 Queensland Fluoridation Committee

With regard to the hazardous waste poisoning aka ‘water fluoridation’ of the population of Queensland, I and countless others, still can scarcely believe how the Fluoridation Propaganda Machine continues to get away with it for decades; and the shocking massive political power and clout of the ADA, AMA and their interests to continue to enforce their agenda of water fluoridation/pollution which is chronically poisoning the population and our environment, the Queensland Fluoridation Committee comprises:-

The Chief Health Officer and the Chief Dental Officer and 6 persons (the appointed members) appointed by the Minister ie 1 nominated by Australian Medical Association, 1 nominated by Australian Dental Association, 1 by Local Government Association of Queensland with expertise in local government matters, 1 person with expertise in Water Engineering, 1 person with expertise in Chemistry or chemical Analysis and 1 person with knowledge and experience in an area relevant to the Committee’s functions and all evidence of harm from world experts continues to be covered up/ignored.

    The number of informed and aware people, groups and organisations vehemently opposed to forced or unforced hazardous waste poisoning of our drinking water supplies (aka ‘water fluoridation’ ) and hence the contamination of our entire food chain, these same ‘pro-fluoridationists’ and their powerful ties, continue to get away with this chronic poisoning of the population. The Government of Queensland and all Australian Governments have failed all duty of care and ethics and are negligent in failing to protect the health and safety of the population in favour of ‘The Fluoridation Fraud’ / ‘The Fluoridation Machine’/Web of Deception.

    ** The Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, School of Dentistry, The University of Adelaide. S.A. http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/ ** Same School of Dentistry, The University of Adelaide, S.A. Colgate Australian Clinical Dental Research Centre (CACDRC) http://health.adelaide.edu.au/dentistry/colgate/

    The continuing fraud of water fluoridation/pollution is obscene:
    Fluoridation & The Web Of Deceit. – Conflicts of Interests
    The Girl Against Fluoride Independent Researcher and Activist – Ireland

    Professor Denis O Mullane is Vice Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Irish Expert Body of fluorides & health. Although he calls himself “an independent objective research worker in the field of Dental Public Health”, this man has promoted water fluoridation around the world for many years. He has pushed water fluoridation in South Africa along with Seamus Hickey.
    Despite Mr Mullane’s pro fluoride bias, in 2002 Michael Martin gave him a grant estimated at a million to investigate the benefits and risks of water fluoridation.

    The British Fluoridation Society includes Denis Mullane in their information leaflets. He is also connected with the British Nutrition Foundation – this was set up in the 1960′s by sugar & pharmaceutical companies such as Tate and Lyle ltd, Cadburys, Proctor & Gamble. Denis Mullane’s uncle was chief chemist of Irish Sugar Company.

    Mr Mullane is part of a group rewriting a document on “Fluorides and Oral Health”, for the WHO. This is one of the men who continues to say that water fluoridation is safe & yet the chemicals used in water fluoridation in Ireland were banned for their use as a wood preservative.
    Dentists have Controlled CDC’s Water Fluoridation Stance for over 35 Years…
    Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970′s, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have completely controlled the agency’s stance supporting water fluoridation. No CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency’s position.

    The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC’s and EPA’s fluoride safety statements, which appear at odds with current scientific knowledge.

    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.”
    An Australian Example of Fluoridation Dictatorship

    2007 The Australian Fluoridation News – Is there a case of Government Fraud?

    Fluoridegate – The Film

    Report Water Fluoridation Pollution Must End > Download Report:

  8. Pingback: Tactical Analysis: The Manipulation of Deniliquin | dianedraytonbuckland

  9. Pingback: Tactical Analysis: The Manipulation of Deniliquin | Australian Safe Water Letter Archive (ASWLA)

  10. Nothing more to say. For manipulation (of data) and the hiding of the facts (of what we’re ingesting) by our ‘authorities’ to get what they want – THAT is the Truth of the matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s