NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

Draft NHMRC Information Paper: Effects of water fluoridation on dental and other health outcomes submission

ID: 
27
This submission reflects the views of
Individual Background: 
Australian-Italian citizen living in Perth WA from 1986 and had back pain with arthritis or fluorosis , thyroid goiter removed after a few years here. Pain in join and other thing!
Personal Details
First Name: 
Luigi
Last Name: 
Rosolin
Specific Questions
Q1. A) Is the draft Information Paper presented in a manner that is easy to understand? : 
Neutral
Q1. B) Please provide details regarding your response to Question 1A: 
Evaluating the evidence

1 Submission to NHMRC: Effect of water fluoridation on dental and other health outcome. 13/10/16

From Luigi Rosolin

 

I not consent to mass medication with fluoridation and your draft report is an insult to common sense, how most 90% probably of the world had remove or rejected this practice and you keep telling is good and safe. Enough political and corruption.

 

  • I found that your draft looking at the effect on water fluoridation is ignoring and misinterpret ever the study research state by you.

  • I’m not a professor but had read extensively in regards of the danger of this insane dangerous practice of forced mass medication with industrial toxic waste coming from fertilizer factory or aluminium manufacture.

  • Is well know that the EPA classify such substance as toxic poison, how can be fluorosis acid that cause well know damage to the environment and people became a healthy medication to fight caries? The Cochrane review clearly point out of the unproved effectiveness to oral health and point clearly to dental fluorosis us a disease that is not only cosmetic, in very high percent on children in fluoridate area. Also the review clearly state that the study and research by them available are mostly not reliable and incorrect and at least further research should be done of adverse health effect.

  • The Lance medical journal clearly report that such chemical use is know to be a neurotoxin, how NHMRC is not taking in account such well know factor?

  • Is also well know that if fluorine not toxic fluorosis acid is effective only by topic so why you great NHMRC panels consultant pay by taxpayer money can keep push such poison and claim is beneficial and cost effective? Million of taxpayer money that mostly is use for not drinking. A small town cost in Queensland recently state that the cost annual is circa of 100 thousand dollars.

  • In Scotland they had use a school oral prevention like teaching who to brush the teeth and had much better oral health without the cost of water fluoridation and the dangerous negative effect that your politically motivate NHMRC are misleading call safe.

  • Is well know that the dose cannot also be deliver in safe mode as people are drinking different quantity of water like myself when I was working outside in hard labour, that logically had cause overdose and problem. What about babies that are overdose and the lack of warning by you and other government health body that are not advertise the danger to parents feeding with fluoridate water mixer with milk power?

  • Are also well know study point out of a increase in cancer in fluoridate community or where the natural poison as is register like arsenic and other one. How skeleton fluorosis is not even nominate in your report? Are hundred of study that point out to the danger to health and you should proved that is not the case.

  • Also this is mass medication that is against human right, you cannot medicate without informal consent, even doctor cannot force patient to take medication who are you to push down my throat such industrial toxic waste that also is probably contain impurity including heavy metal?

I had not follow your guideline. I had the right to submit in the way I like not your and is time that people nominate in government body to be scrutiny, I certainly disappoint at least. Take note, that more and more citizen are getting inform and one day your standing can be take all of you, to an inquire with congruence’s if found misleading or incorrect advise are given. Sincerely Luigi Rosolin     

   

ater Fluoridation and dental fluorosis – Dental fluorosis

You know well that is not only estetic so stop the lies.

Q2. A) Is it clear how NHMRC reviewed the health and dental effects of water fluoridation? : 
Disagree
Q2. B) Please provide details regarding you response to Question 2A: 

Are hundred of study that point out of the danger of using toxic waste called fluorine Fluorosis acid mostly. The journal medical Lance state that is a neurotoxin. Dr Geoffrey Pain from AU and PHD Paul Connett that had lecture here in AU in regards. He wrote the book " The Case Against Fluoride" not one had contest or proved the hundred study and report given by him and on the website Fluoride Action Network that give many study and research and common sense to anyone who want get inform. So why you that should protect my health should ignore such information? many other even medical and scientific people include a Medical Premium Nobel had spoke again and give evidence that is wrong to mass medicate as are plenty of evidence that can be dangerous. In Case of Doubt you had the duty to adviser your political patron to stop the practice as is contrary to the medicine protocol. Also mass medication (is given to prevent) and the chemical is not a natural food element right the opposite and cannot be pass like a mineral or other substance as is by the EPA of Unite State of America register as toxic poison and also the natural fluorine is register by chemist as poison. Clearly all of you are ignoring all this.

Q3. A) Is the Fluoride Reference Group’s interpretation of the evidence clearly described in the draft Information Paper?: 
Disagree
Q3. B) Please provide details regarding your response to Question 3A: 

Your draft is not taking in consideration that such mass medication is unsafe as the practical delivery as the US case but even in AU had by fact occurred that the amount mixed was much above the wanted or intended. Also is well know that the substance is effective if any only by topic (when in direct contact with the teeth) so why people had to drink and adversely affected by toxicity neurotoxin? look like a miracle occur, a toxic waste that cannot be release in water earth air as dangerous is became good to protect the teeth ! A Joke.

Q4. Is there additional evidence on the dental effects of water fluoridation that should be considered?: 

Yes I had 90% false teeth why I had to drink such poison and why in thirty years in WA my teeth are not better that when I was living in another non fluoridated countries? Why the WHO clearly demonstrate that is not or are minimum difference from fluoridate population on oral health? Even many countries had better oral health that fluoridate one. Africa look at the pour people with perfect teeth and not fluoride. Please tell the realty that most damage is done by sugar that is put in mass proportion in cold drink and food. That what you should adviser your political patron.

Q5. Is there additional evidence on any other health effects of water fluoridation that should be considered in the draft Information Paper?: 

Yust look at the web site of Dr Paul Connett for example !!

Q6. Is there any other supporting material relevant to making decisions on water fluoridation in the Australian context that should be considered in the draft Information Paper?: 

Why people like me suffer pain cause by bone calcification fluorosis, that doctor here in AU are not even prepared to diagnostic and are not been teach about?? Shame!

Page reviewed: 4 July, 2017