/Nexus - 1106 - New Times Magazine/pages/0026/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
ABSURDITIES THE WATER FLUORIDATION Fluoridation of the water supply is an unethical, unnecessary, ineffective, unsafe and inequitable practice, and its supporters include powerful vested interests in industry, government and the medical/dental profession. ater fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon [although it has also een adopted in many other countries — Ed.]. It started at a time when asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our trans- ‘ormers and DDT was deemed so "safe and effective" that officials felt no qualms about spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one, all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched. For over 50 years, US government officials have confidently and enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is "safe and effective". However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming. To simplify things, it helps to separate the ethical from the scientific arguments. For those for which ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is not ethical; we simply shouldn't be forcing medication on people without their "informed consent". The bad news is that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington, DC, unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are buttressed by solid, common-sense arguments and scientific studies which convincingly show that fluoridation is neither "safe and effective" nor necessary. I have summarised the arguments in several categories: Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because: 1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication. 2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient. 3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response. 4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others; some people will suffer, while others may benefit. 5) It violates the Nuremberg code on human experimentation. Dr Arvid Carlsson, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2000, stated: "I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history... Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication—of the type 'take | tablet 3 times a day'—to a much more individualised therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualised therapy." Dr Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al., 2000), stated: "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion." by Paul Connett, PhD © November 2002 From the websites: http://www.redflagsweekly.com/ connett/2002_nov28.html and http://www. fluoridealert.org/ absurdity.htm by Paul Connett, PhD © November 2002 From the websites: http://www.redflagsweekly.com/ connett/2002_nov28.html and http://www. fluoridealert.org/ absurdity.htm Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because: 1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride. 2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical, not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimising exposure to the rest of the body. NEXUS * 25 OCTOBER — NOVEMBER 2004 www.nexusmagazine.com