Anti-fluoride activists continue making vicious death threats against NSW Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant

37

Police are investigating threats made to NSW Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant by members of the anti-fluoride lobby.

Dr Chant was the subject of a thinly veiled Facebook death threat by the group No Fluoride Australia this week. They have also put out a wanted poster of Dr Chant complete with bullet holes.

"Expect to be threatened! The community is angry, it wouldn't surprise me if these criminals pretending to be authorties (sic) on health start going missing, eventually members of the public will snap and take matters into their own hands, its only a matter of time. People go missing over far more trivial issues," was posted on the Facebook page by No Fluoride Australia on September 12.

Last week Dr Chant was also threatened with sarin gas – the deadly chemical used in recent attacks in Syria – by anti-fluoride activists after she spoke at a heated Lismore Council meeting, which agreed to overturn a longstanding fluoride ban.

Written By: Jane Hansen
continue to source article at dailytelegraph.com.au

37 COMMENTS

  1. I would love it if some knowledgeable person would explain the issues around fluoride for the benefit of those of us who don’t know much about it. My knee-jerk reaction is that I doubt it is dangerous to health, but why do we need it in drinking water? We don’t put vitamin C in drinking water, and we know it is good for us. It seems to me that people can choose for themselves whether to take a particular supplement. The drinking water in my community does not contain fluoride, and my kids got almost no cavities growing up.

    • In reply to #3 by zonotrichia:

      I would love it if some knowledgeable person would explain the issues around fluoride for the benefit of those of us who don’t know much about it. My knee-jerk reaction is that I doubt it is dangerous to health, but why do we need it in drinking water? We don’t put vitamin C in drinking water, and…

      This article at quackwatch might be a good starting point: http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

      Unfortunately some parents do not encourage their children to brush their teeth regularly, so I would think fluoride in drinking water would help such kids.

    • In reply to #3 by zonotrichia:

      I would love it if some knowledgeable person would explain the issues around fluoride for the benefit of those of us who don’t know much about it.

      http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/

      For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

      I would suspect you kept some vigilance making sure your kids brushed their teeth. Unfortunately in many households that doesn’t happen.

    • In reply to #3 by zonotrichia:

      I would love it if some knowledgeable person would explain the issues around fluoride for the benefit of those of us who don’t know much about it. My knee-jerk reaction is that I doubt it is dangerous to health, but why do we need it in drinking water? We don’t put vitamin C in drinking water, and…

      It needs to be in water because states that don’t have much poorer dental health by a wide margin and all the associated health risks that go along with it. Most of the Western world has been fluoridating water for decades with NO negative health impacts. Vitamin C is available in many foods so just eating a balanced diet will provide that. We also add iodine to salt to stop goitre due to thyroid issues stopped that in short order. If they want to be toothless crones they can get a water filter or use a rain water tank. I live in a state that did not have fluoride for decades our state has the very clear evidence of poor dental health compared to other states.

    • In reply to #3 by zonotrichia:

      I would love it if some knowledgeable person would explain the issues around fluoride for the benefit of those of us who don’t know much about it. My knee-jerk reaction is that I doubt it is dangerous to health, but why do we need it in drinking water?

      We have been drinking fluoride in water for 40 years in my area. The only significant health change, is in the reduction in the need for dental fillings and extractions.

      We don’t put vitamin C in drinking water, and we know it is good for us.

      That is not practicable or economic.

      It seems to me that people can choose for themselves whether to take a particular supplement.

      Why have the ignorant make choices about public supplies, or public health issues? Do we ask if they want chlorination of water or prefer dysentery and other bacterial or parasite infections as in parts of Africa?

      The drinking water in my community does not contain fluoride, and my kids got almost no cavities growing up.

      Did they use fluoride toothpaste, or were they just lucky so far? It takes a while to discover you need false teeth at 40 !

      • In reply to #12 by Alan4discussion:

        In reply to #3 by zonotrichia:

        I would love it if some knowledgeable person would explain the issues around fluoride for the benefit of those of us who don't know much about it. My knee-jerk reaction is that I doubt it is dangerous to health, but why do we need it in drinking water?
        

        We have been drinking fluoride in water for 40 years in my area. The only significant health change, is in the reduction in the need for dental fillings and extractions.

        “We’ve been doing it that way for 40 years” in addition to anecdote now becomes a valid argument? The US has been carrying out mass genital mutilations of baby boys for over a century now perhaps that’s why they can’t stop. “Reduction in the need for dental fillings and extractions” can only be correlated to fluoride in the water?

        It seems to me that people can choose for themselves whether to take a particular supplement.
        

        Why have the ignorant make choices about public supplies, or public health issues? Do we ask if they want chlorination of water or prefer dysentery and other bacterial or parasite infections as in parts of Africa?

        Quite the trifecta here: ad hominem, hyperbole and strawman in addition to not addressing the point: the freedom of choice in a PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL health issue – unless you also want to claim that my presumed rotting teeth due to the absence of fluoridation will rot yours due to deepakian quantum interconnectivity™. We have had and continue to have “experts” make choices on medical procedures, drug safety, tobacco, petroleum extraction methods, nuclear energy just to name a few. Some of these choices are dead wrong and not just once but over and over again over decades.

        The drinking water in my community does not contain fluoride, and my kids got almost no cavities growing up.
        

        Did they use fluoride toothpaste, or were they just lucky so far? It takes a while to discover you need false teeth at 40 !

        So, perhaps, while living in a developed country they weren’t to lazy to use fluoride toothpaste, which, by the way, they spat out i.e. were not obliged to ingest. Do you have a problem with that?

        Not your best work here. How long did you say you’ve been drinking fluoridated water? Just kidding.

        • In reply to #14 by godsbuster:

          “We’ve been doing it that way for 40 years” in addition to anecdote now becomes a valid argument?

          Nope! It became a valid scientifically monitored field test which has produced solid evidence now acted upon by the medical profession.
          Here is some medical advice:-

          http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/OralHealthInformation/ChildrensOralHealth/ToothDecayProcess.htm

          Fluoride works to protect teeth. It . . .

          • prevents mineral loss in tooth enamel and replaces lost minerals
          • reduces the ability of bacteria to make acid

          Drinking fluoridated water from a community water supply;
          about 74 percent of Americans served by a community water supply system receive fluoridated water.

          http://kidshealth.org/kid/talk/qa/fluoride.html

          • In reply to #15 by Alan4discussion:

            Well said and referenced. I am a dentist (endodontist, actually, and I see the damage caused by dental caries at its worst), and the whole anti-fluoride business makes me sick.

            Steve

          • In reply to #16 by Agrajag:

            In reply to #15 by Alan4discussion:

            Well said and referenced. I am a dentist (endodontist, actually, and I see the damage caused by dental caries at its worst), and the whole anti-fluoride business makes me sick.

            It is comically sad, that most of those who vociferously object to “the addition of “chemicals” in the fluoridation of public water supplies, do not raise a squeak about all the pesticides, fertilizer run-off, and industrial pollutants like mercury, cyanide or arsenic, which they drink in extracted lake-water, river-water, and ground-water.

            http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/operations/water/WWMeasure.htm

            http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/inorg-con.htm

          • In reply to #15 by Alan4discussion:

            In reply to #14 by godsbuster:

            “We’ve been doing it that way for 40 years” in addition to anecdote now becomes a valid argument?

            Nope! It became a valid scientifically monitored field test which has produced solid evidence now acted upon by the medical profession.

            Here is some medical advice:-…

            Good ole American Exceptionalism® again -works for Male Genital Mutilation (medically euphemised with the term circumcision), water fluoridation, the war on terrah, the war on drugs, personal gun ownership, etc. At least we can find solace in the old saw: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

            “Most countries in Europe have experienced substantial declines in cavities without the use of water fluoridation. For example, in Finland and Germany, tooth decay rates remained stable or continued to decline after water fluoridation stopped. Fluoridation may be useful in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride. The effectiveness of water fluoridation can vary according to circumstances such as whether preventive dental care is free to all children.”

            I notice you avoided addressing the ethical issue of imposing unnecessary involuntary fluoridation on everybody. I’ll take that as a you now also see it as untenable after all as do most of such backward countries of the world as those of Europe and Japan.

          • In reply to #18 by godsbuster:

            Good ole American Exceptionalism® again -works for Male Genital Mutilation (medically euphemised with the term circumcision), water fluoridation, the war on terrah, the war on drugs, personal gun ownership, etc. At least we can find solace in the old saw: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

            I’d have to take your word for that! I’m English, but my wife is Scottish! My daughter spent a year working in New York, so can confirm some of your claims.

            I notice you avoided addressing the ethical issue of imposing unnecessary involuntary fluoridation on everybody. I’ll take that as a you now also see it as untenable after all as do most of such backward countries of the world as those of Europe and Japan.

            “Imposing unnecessary involuntary fluoridation”, is rather begging the question as to if it is necessary and effective for the majority. We have had it for 40 years with negligible complaints., and ethically follow majority support for expert scientific opinion.

            BTW;- Do you take exception to any of the other chemicals mentioned @17 or on the links?

          • In reply to #19 by Alan4discussion:

            In reply to #18 by godsbuster:

            “Imposing unnecessary involuntary fluoridation”, is rather begging the question as to if it is necessary and effective for the majority. We have had it for 40 years with negligible complaints., and ethically follow majority support for expert scientific opinion.

            Americans might say the splendid results (which I don’t contest) on British teeth are not much borne out by the visuals.
            Joking aside, I can usually be found amongst the first to want to try to plant the science flag -even in territories where it’s not considered kosher e.g. ethics a la Sam Harris. However I just want to point out there have been enough and epic “expert” screw ups to remain critically vigilant. Circumcision can arguably also be brushed off as presenting relatively negligible complaints. Rabbis will proudly tell you it hasn’t impeded the harvest of Nobel prizes. Still not a reason to do it when there’s no reason to do it.

            BTW;- Do you take exception to any of the other chemicals mentioned @17 or on the links?

            Very naughty of you to start flinging “what abouts” at this stage;-) Do you no longer take exception to the pesticides wafting over from the farmland behind your house because there are diesel fumes wafting over from the highway in front of it?

          • In reply to #21 by godsbuster:

            Very naughty of you to start flinging “what abouts” at this stage;-) Do you no longer take exception to the pesticides wafting over from the farmland behind your house because there are diesel fumes wafting over from the highway in front of it?

            Not really! Low does of fluoride have been shown to be harmless and beneficial. Our water supply comes mainly from upland lakes surrounded by forests and moorland, so is lightly chlorinated and fluidised.

            Thames water for example looks like being “recycled” in the future. ( that is it has been through houses, drains and sewage works before being recycled back in the water supply.)

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22479216

            Recycled toilet waste could be introduced to London’s tap water, under plans being considered by Thames Water.

            The company has launched a consultation on the idea of drinking sewage water which has been treated, put back in the Thames and retreated.

            A strategy document said the technique was “common practice” across the world.

            But many Londoners told the BBC they were unhappy at the idea of drinking waste water including from dishwashers, washing machines, baths and toilets.

            Many other supplies contain run-off with nitrates or pesticide residues from farm land, or heavy metal contamination from mining or industry.

            A lot of river water in the USA has high levels of mercury contaminating fish stocks, so it is a fair question, that if people are concerned about carefully monitored low doses of fluoride, are they not concerned and investigating more poisonous substances in some water supplies?

    • In reply to #3 by zonotrichia:

      I would love it if some knowledgeable person would explain the issues around fluoride for the benefit of those of us who don’t know much about it. My knee-jerk reaction is that I doubt it is dangerous to health, but why do we need it in drinking water? We don’t put vitamin C in drinking water, and…

      We put 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre) of fluoride in the water. To do the same with Vitamin C, would need about 1000 mg/L. This would interfere with other uses of water. It would also be rather unpopular with those with diarrhea. You would also taste it.

  2. After reading this article, I posted this comment on the No Fluoride Australia Facebook page:
    I work in a lab that tests public drinking water. Toxic metal concentrations are so low they are barely detectable and definitely not a threat to your health. Here are some of the replies I got:
    *You are an idiot and an obvious troll!
    Cancer rates have skyrocketed from one in several thousand to 1 in 2 since the introduction of fluoride.
    David, what don’t you understand ??….fluoride is the leading cause of cancer in the 21st century, any doctor will tell you that David….and if you are a diabetic you drink much more water than a fitter being that the upper limit was designed for…and it ACCUMULATES
    Read this David and get another job.

    These are not nice people and they are certainly not rational.

    • In reply to #6 by David W:

      Cancer rates have skyrocketed from one in several thousand to 1 in 2 since the introduction of fluoride.

      Yes, but there also been 100 new insecticides, 2000 new industrial chemicals, a 200% increase in junk food consumption, a %100 increase in sedentary behaviour, a 40% increase in illegal drug uses, a 30% increase in work stress, a 35% increase is saturated fat consumption …

      Such a correlation suggests it is time to do a study, not to make a conclusion of causality. Further, if flouride were the culprit you would see a patten of cancer everywhere there was fluoridation and no increase everywhere there was not.

      It does not make sense to posit a evil conspiracy. Flouridation costs less than $1.00 per citizen per year.

  3. They should come up here to Queensland, the land of ignorance where a former Premier once took the oxymoronic step of having all our number plates labelled “The Smart State” and our current Premier has allowed individual councils to choose if they wish to fluoridate the water. Home of Clive Palmer, They’d fit right in.

  4. Anti fluoride,anti vaccines,holocaust deniers, climate change deniers,9/11 conspiracy promoters.homeopathic “medicine” promoters, amongst others.I’ll retire to bedlam,as Scrooge says in “A Christmas Carol”

  5. A few years ago our local government formed a committee to decide the issue of fluoridation. A committee about public health policy that was comprised of lay people! I remember being irate at my now former dentist who refused to get involved (I specifically asked him about it). One local orthopaedist (out of 6) dug up one obscure study about potential negative effects in bone growth in adolescent males (something like that, don’t quote me). A few of the local physicians and other dentists wrote letters in support of the benefits to our paper; all to no avail.

    I even contacted Stephen Barrett, MD (Quackwatch founder) and asked his advice. He said (paraphrasing) once the poison-mongers get their messages printed in local papers, it’s likely too late. Indeed it was as we no longer have fluoridated water. On the other hand, we have no shortage of monthly operating room procedures for pediatric dental caries.

    What irks me is the reasoning for the decision to stop fluoridation. If the Committee would have said, “it’s too expensive” or if they didn’t have the safety equipment for handling large supplies of fluoride I could have respected that. However, they chose to focus on the so-called “controversy” surrounding the subject instead of what is known about optimal fluoridation. The key word being optimal.

    What’s next? Are they going to remove protozoa/virus/bacteria treatments too?

  6. Alan4discussion said in reply to godsbuster: “Do you take exception to any of the other chemicals mentioned @17 or on the links?”

    Good question. People who oppose the fluoridation of water on the grounds that it is involuntary must logically oppose the addition of all chemicals to the water supply (or indeed the extraction of dangerous chemicals from untreated water). Yet I have never heard any of the anti-fluoridation campaigners complain about adding chlorine to water. Does godbuster oppose chlorination? Never mind whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’; it is involuntary so he/she must oppose it, right?

    • In reply to #20 by Dubhlinneach:

      Alan4discussion said in reply to godsbuster: “Do you take exception to any of the other chemicals mentioned @17 or on the links?”

      Yet I have never heard any of the anti-fluoridation campaigners complain about adding chlorine to water. Does godbuster oppose chlorination? Never mind whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’; it is involuntary so he/she must oppose it, right?

      Easy on the strawman pardner, I’m not an “anti-fluoridation campaigner.” If we can provide safe and healthy and good tasting drinking water without chlorination (believe it or not, it does exist in nature and there is nothing more divine than its’ taste) would you not prefer that? Why let the mediocrity of the good enough be the enemy of the best?

      • It’s no strawman. You are not an anti-fluoridation campaigner, that’s fine but those who are always bring up this ‘involuntary medication’ objection to fluoridation. If this is a genuine objection (and it is a stand-alone objection) then such people must, in logic, be opposed to all chemicals added to (or extracted from) the public water supply without the consent of the individual consumer. Yet, the only chemical they hone in on is fluoride. It is quite illogical.

        As for chlorine, there are few things in life I enjoy more than a cool draft of “pure” water from a fresh mountain stream when I go hiking. Of course, it might be contaminated with sheep shit but I am prepared to take that risk. What I am not prepared to risk is a typhoid epidemic by insisting that chlorine should not be added to the public water supply just because it is involuntary. I note that the anti-fluoridation campaigns never make this demand either. This means they are not totally stupid but they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

        In reply to #22 by godsbuster:

        In reply to #20 by Dubhlinneach:

        Alan4discussion said in reply to godsbuster: “Do you take exception to any of the other chemicals mentioned @17 or on the links?”

        Yet I have never heard any of the anti-fluoridation campaigners complain about adding chlorine to water. Does godbuster oppose chlorin…

        • In reply to #23 by Dubhlinneach:

          As for chlorine, there are few things in life I enjoy more than a cool draft of “pure” water from a fresh mountain stream when I go hiking. Of course, it might be contaminated with sheep shit but I am prepared to take that risk.

          … been there, done that! We found the dead sheep in the water up-stream later!

      • In reply to #22 by godsbuster:

        Easy on the strawman pardner, I’m not an “anti-fluoridation campaigner.” If we can provide safe and healthy and good tasting drinking water without chlorination (believe it or not, it does exist in nature and there is nothing more divine than its’ taste) would you not prefer that? Why let the mediocrity of the good enough be the enemy of the best?

        There is a point if you live in a low quality water area (like London), which is why so many people there drink bottled water. Quite often this has synthetic flavours, although some comes from natural springs.

        Heavy chlorination is usual and necessary where the water quality is low, – and yes it does taste poor.

        The chlorination will be even heavier in London if the proposals @24 go ahead!

    • In reply to #20 by Dubhlinneach:

      Chlorine is added to the water supply to SANITIZE water!
      However, the reason cited for the addition of Fluoride is supposedly to maintain Dental health!
      That’s utter nonsense!

      Fluoride works to protect teeth when applied TOPICALLY.

      • In reply to #36 by Terra Watt:
        >

        Chlorine is added to the water supply to SANITIZE water! However, the reason cited for the addition of Fluoride is supposedly to maintain Dental health! That’s utter nonsense!

        Nope!! It’s proven science!

        Fluoride works to protect teeth when applied TOPICALLY.

        It does provide some second-rate protection when applied topically, but ingestion of fluoridated water is the most effective method.

        See my link @15.

  7. For a second there I thought I was reading about this happening in America where these kind of tinfoil hate rejections of all things intelligent is par for the course. Imagine my surprise when I read that this was in Australia….Sorry Aussies for sending some of our anti intellectual cultural influence your way :-/

  8. What do these goofs have to say about places in the planet where the water is naturally fluoridated?

    Are there any studies showing fluoride is a problem?

    My dentist asked me to use a high flouride 1.1% toothpaste called PreviDent. You would think troubles would show up in the use of such toothpastes long before flouridated water.

    However, in principle I oppose flouride. Only a tiny proportion of tap water ever goes near teeth. Water is used for all sorts of things. For all those other uses flouride could potentially interfere. Pretty much the only way to avoid it is expensive steam distillation. The dose varies widely. I think flouride should be put in milk, drinks, mouthwash etc. where you can more precisely control dose, or avoid it altogether if your religion requires rotten teeth. Further, you probably just want to immerse the teeth, not swallow the fluoride.

  9. One of the reasons fluoride nuts are highly suspicious is that NaF is an industrial waste product. The initial push for putting it in drinking water was mainly to find a market for a waste product.

  10. In reply to #3 by zonotrichia:

    I would love it if some knowledgeable person would explain the issues around fluoride for the benefit of those of us who don’t know much about it. My knee-jerk reaction is that I doubt it is dangerous to health, but why do we need it in drinking water? We don’t put vitamin C in drinking water, and…

    We put 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre) of fluoride in the water. To do the same with Vitamin C, would need about 1000 mg/L. This would interfere with other uses of water. It would also be rather unpopular with those with diarrhea. You would also taste it.

Leave a Reply