Councils to vote on fluoride poll (From Daily Echo)

Let's see what they do then, talk is cheap. I am not sure how much weight this will hold with central government though, they do as they please, with local councils being poor relations. Still it is something, which is better than not doing anything at all.

If everyone who doesn't want fluoridation refuses to pay their water bills there will be chaos, so what will Southern water do then? There is strength in numbers, and they and the SHA know it

If it should happen that a referendum is called I worry there will be too many people 'out there' who either work, have a dozen kids, old, disabled who will say to themselves 'Oh well, there are plenty of people who will go, so I won't make the effort'. Many people that I have spoken to have winced at the thought of fluoride, but also the dictatorship behind it all. That word 'Democracy' is constantly spoken about but still the undemocratics bulldoze their way through our lives.

goard

Why is it better to have a decision made by lots of uninformed people rather than a small number of informed ones?

If a referendum does happen it must be done on a basis of the anti fluoride groups getting equal funding from the public purse, in order to allow them to counterbalance the government funded propaganda put out in favour of fluoridation by the pro fluoride lobby, led by the now Minister of health, Andy Burnham, who was vice president of the British Fluoridation Society (government funded) until questioned about his undeclared interest by the Times newspaper. (A leopard can't change its spots Mr Burnham, resigning doesn't mean you are now neutral in your views, does it?)
Also the question asked must not be a leading question ie: Would you like something put in your water to improve children's dental health. The question must just be: Do you want fluoride added to your water supply, Yes or No.
Local Health Authorities and Politicians please take note.

Redback wrote:
Why is it better to have a decision made by lots of uninformed people rather than a small number of informed ones?

It isn't.

We all have a responsibility to become informed about major issues, so that we can make informed choices about life in general.

Many of the people who exhibit a couldn't-care-less attitude on these forums are probably too lazy to read up on various topics.

Try switching of the goggle box, miss a couple of hours at the pub and use the internet to research these topics.

You will be a better person for it.

A toxic industrial waste passed off on the public as a nutrient with necessary health benefits, to the tune of $10 billion.

Next, we have to look at the people that are for and against this assault upon our health.

Those against this horror movie are everyday people. Accountants, retired engineers, chemistry professors, teachers, acupuncturists, dentists, believe it or not, the Union of Scientists at the EPA, and a host of others from all walks of life. And, all of them come armed with peer-reviewed scientific literature to back up what they have to say.

Those in favor of this horror movie, with lots of credentials, are the majority of dentists, the public health officials and many people in various government positions. And what do they come armed with? Speculation and years of repeating, like good little lemmings, that fluoride is "safe and effective". If it were so safe and effective to ingest, why would the CDC say that fluoride's effectiveness is on the surface of the tooth and only after it comes into the mouth?

Anyway, let's take a look at some of these individuals with, "credentials".


Dr. Chester Douglass, Dental School Head, Harvard University
In late 2005 or early 2006, one of Dr. Douglass' dental doctorate students, Elise Bassin, prepared a thesis on fluoride. Dr. Douglass then released her thesis with one minor modification. He eliminated the part in the thesis where Bassin proved that fluoride causes bone cancer in adolescent boys. Boy oh boy, why would Dr. Douglass deliberately eliminate that part? I wonder if the fact that Dr. Douglass's being on the payroll of the Colgate-Palmolive Company had anything to do with it? Then, Harvard did their own in-house investigation of Dr. Douglass' actions and exonerated him. I wonder if the fact that Dr. Douglass's donation of $1 million to Harvard had any influence in that decision?


Dentists
Consider this: that same National Research Council report came to the conclusion that fluoridated water should not be used in infant formula because of the danger of neurological damage and that kidney patients, diabetics, seniors and outdoor workers were susceptible populations especially vulnerable to harm from fluoride ingestion. Yet, many dentists, many of the States' Dental Associations and our Public Health officials have failed to pass on that message. Do you think that it might be hard for some people to admit they were wrong about something?

Before organized dentistry became fluoride fixated, a 1950 Connecticut study, before fluoridation, clearly linked more fruit and vegetable consumption and less sugar consumption to fewer cavities. Did you know that a 20-ounce bottle of soda contains 14 teaspoons of sugar and a 7-11 "Big Gulp" contains 56 teaspoons of sugar? If there were any more than that the sugar would too heavy and settle to the bottom. But, I guess the dentists' answer to that situation would be if the soda were made with fluoridated water, cavities could be prevented. Riiiiiiight!

After 60 years of water fluoridation reaching 2/3 of Americans via public water supplies, virtually 100% via the food supply and fluoridated dental products (a multi-billion dollar international business), up to a half of U.S. schoolchildren sport fluoride overdose symptoms as dental fluorosis - white, yellow or brown, and sometimes pitted teeth (1). But, tooth decay is still a national epidemic, especially among the low-income people who can't find dentists willing or able to fix their rotting teeth. And why are the dentists not willing or able to treat these low-income people? Because the amount that Medicaid pays is too low.

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was an established neurotoxicologist whose research proved fluoride to be a neurotoxin affecting the central nervous system. Her work was not only dismissed when she published it in 1995, but it also ended her career. What's ironic is that one of her mentors, Dr. Harold Hodge, who served as the chief toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, aka the Atomic Energy Commission, was instrumental in selling fluoride to the public. As her work progressed and she reported her findings to Hodge, he shrugged them off. It wasn't until much later that
Mullenix learned that Hodge had conducted his own research 50 years earlier and had discovered then the connection between fluoride and its ill effects on the central nervous system.

Many of the early opponents to water fluoridation recognized that fluoride was a critical component in uranium and aluminum production and a necessity in the making of the "bomb". Common sense told them that adding the waste product of a chemical that can cut through steel
is bound to have some adverse health effects. Despite their best efforts, a massive PR campaign was waged and won and fluoride was shoved into public drinking water supplies and into dental curriculums -a neat and tidy solution to the expensive problem of what to do with toxic waste. And, much of the research supporting fluoridation came from industry-funded studies. How objective!

Conclusion

The National Research Council advises that more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, immune deficiencies, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions, arthritis-like conditions, and more.

Peer reviewed studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficiencies, thyroid dysfunction, gum disease, kidney, tooth and bone damage and symptoms characteristic of Alzheimer's disease. In fact, medical reports from India have indicated that arthritic type symptoms have disappeared when test subjects stopped using fluoridated toothpaste.

So, why do the dental associations and public health officials still cling to the idea that fluoridation is good?
Denial?
Dental school indoctrination?
Embarrassment that they have been wrong all along?
Possible liability associated with all the deleterious health effects people have suffered from fluoride being thrust upon them against their will?
I guess it's more convenient to carry on with the idea that fluoridation is beneficial than to lose face!

So, here we are again having yet another debate about fluoridation. And again the "uncredentialed" come in with references to peer-reviewed studies and the "credentialed" come in with, "it's been proven safe and effective", unsubstantiated speculation.


Please, for heaven's sake, keep our drinking water pure and don't use it as a vehicle to deliver a highly toxic medication recommended by credentialed individuals with no integrity.

Consider this: under the Pure Water Drinking Act it is illegal to dump fluoride in the lakes, streams and oceans. But, for some weird reason, it's ok for fluoride to do this if it passes through a water faucet and a person's body first.


References:

(1) http://www.cdc.gov/m
mwr/preview/mmwrhtml
/figures/s403a1t23.g
if

(2) http://www.anthc.org
/cs/chs/dhs/

(3) http://www.anthc.org
/cs/chs/dhs

(4) http://www.anthc.org
/cs/dhs/upload/UAATh
eNorthernLight- DentalDebateGoesToCo
urt 2-21-06 Afleming.pdf

(5) http://www.dfw.com/m
ld/dfw/news/16566335
.htm

(6) http://groups.google
.com/group/Fluoridat
ion-News-Releases/br
owse_thread/5198fb71
1662057

Well, I'm with Goldacre.

However loudly anyone shouts, there simply isn't enough quality evidence either on the dental effects, or adverse side-effects, for a conclusion to be reached either way.

So in a risk averse culture such as ours, it should probably be avoided.

I'm just totally unconvinced of the point of running an expensive referendum on the issue. I see no value at all in obtaining Mrs Biggins the grocer's opinion on the matter, or Mr Jones the postie. I can't see what insight they would have that the medically trained would have missed.

Just a reminder of one word there: Expense. Referenda are expensive.

A referendum is no good - if there was a "yes" vote it would still mean tens of thousands of people being supplied with something they don't need and don't want. However, if they were given an assurance that they would be provided with a free method of removing the fluoride, that's another matter.

Re the "informed experts" that Redback says he would rather leave the decision making to. I wonder if he is aware that, during the meeting at Saint Marys Stadium, one of the twelve unelected civil servants, who made the decision to go ahead with fluoridation, asked the question "Is dental fluorosis reversible?" That is how informed these people that he thinks should be trusted to make this sort of decision really are. Clearly the woman concerned had not done any research at all and was just playing follow the leader. By the way, Gordon Brown said it should be up to the LOCAL people to decide. Only ONE of those twelve on the board of the Health Authority lives in the area affected.
Personally I WOULD TRUST THEM AS FAR AS YOU CAN THROW THEM.

Chris Barker wrote:
Re the "informed experts" that Redback says he would rather leave the decision making to. I wonder if he is aware that, during the meeting at Saint Marys Stadium, one of the twelve unelected civil servants, who made the decision to go ahead with fluoridation, asked the question "Is dental fluorosis reversible?" That is how informed these people that he thinks should be trusted to make this sort of decision really are. Clearly the woman concerned had not done any research at all and was just playing follow the leader. By the way, Gordon Brown said it should be up to the LOCAL people to decide. Only ONE of those twelve on the board of the Health Authority lives in the area affected.
Personally I WOULD TRUST THEM AS FAR AS YOU CAN THROW THEM.

Well that civil servant is clearly no more qualified to decide than you or I then!

The decision should be informed by the Medical Directors of SUHT and SCPCT, alongside national clinical leaders in the field.

It should be based upon evidence, not emotion or supposition.

And as I said - the evidence does not actually exist. So until thorough research is done, it should be put on hold. Once they have a solid evidence base, it can be re-examined.

Personally, I have no problem with flouridation - but the above is the only reasonable and fair way to approach it imo.

Pam W wrote:
If everyone who doesn't want fluoridation refuses to pay their water bills there will be chaos, so what will Southern water do then? There is strength in numbers, and they and the SHA know it

Well i reckon that if everyone who doesnt want flouride refuses to pay Southern Water it is simple.

Your water will be cut off

Problem solved!!

Redback, please forgive me but health risks and referenda costs are only part of the problem. How about rights and in particular the right of an individual to refuse medication? Its no coincidence that a Nanny State is proposing to abrogate individual rights by assigning the decision to unelected and non-resident experts, while at the same time the state's Supreme Leader proclaims that it must be a local decision! Even in a referendum, no one --regardless of the size of the majority in favour -- has the right to enforce a medicine on his or her neighbour ...or have we learned nothing from recent Soviet and Nazi history?

Do your homework Lone Ranger - it's ILLEGAL for a water company to cut off your water supply even if you haven't paid your bill.

naive wrote:
Redback, please forgive me but health risks and referenda costs are only part of the problem. How about rights and in particular the right of an individual to refuse medication? Its no coincidence that a Nanny State is proposing to abrogate individual rights by assigning the decision to unelected and non-resident experts, while at the same time the state's Supreme Leader proclaims that it must be a local decision! Even in a referendum, no one --regardless of the size of the majority in favour -- has the right to enforce a medicine on his or her neighbour ...or have we learned nothing from recent Soviet and Nazi history?

I appreciate your point, but I don't believe this is 'forced medication' for two reasons.

Firstly, it replicates what is found perfectly naturally in many water supplies. Do the people of Hartlepool (for example) have a 'right' to flouride-free water?

Secondly, it is not 'forced medication' because ther is still the choice of purchasing bottled water for drinking puposes. I'm not claiming that would be cheap, practical or fair, but the choice exists.

Finally, please look up "Godwin's law"!!! :D

Redback wrote:

naive wrote:
Redback, please forgive me but health risks and referenda costs are only part of the problem. How about rights and in particular the right of an individual to refuse medication? Its no coincidence that a Nanny State is proposing to abrogate individual rights by assigning the decision to unelected and non-resident experts, while at the same time the state's Supreme Leader proclaims that it must be a local decision! Even in a referendum, no one --regardless of the size of the majority in favour -- has the right to enforce a medicine on his or her neighbour ...or have we learned nothing from recent Soviet and Nazi history?

I appreciate your point, but I don't believe this is 'forced medication' for two reasons.

Firstly, it replicates what is found perfectly naturally in many water supplies. Do the people of Hartlepool (for example) have a 'right' to flouride-free water?

Secondly, it is not 'forced medication' because ther is still the choice of purchasing bottled water for drinking puposes. I'm not claiming that would be cheap, practical or fair, but the choice exists.

Finally, please look up "Godwin's law"!!! :D

Bottled water will only work to a point. I might buy it but outside of my own home I have no control over whom would use the water supply: restaurants, shops etc. It can also be absorbed by the body through bathing. I personally do not wish to be subjected to it, therefore it is my right not to have to.

Oracle1 wrote:

Redback wrote:

naive wrote: Redback, please forgive me but health risks and referenda costs are only part of the problem. How about rights and in particular the right of an individual to refuse medication? Its no coincidence that a Nanny State is proposing to abrogate individual rights by assigning the decision to unelected and non-resident experts, while at the same time the state's Supreme Leader proclaims that it must be a local decision! Even in a referendum, no one --regardless of the size of the majority in favour -- has the right to enforce a medicine on his or her neighbour ...or have we learned nothing from recent Soviet and Nazi history?

I appreciate your point, but I don't believe this is 'forced medication' for two reasons. Firstly, it replicates what is found perfectly naturally in many water supplies. Do the people of Hartlepool (for example) have a 'right' to flouride-free water? Secondly, it is not 'forced medication' because ther is still the choice of purchasing bottled water for drinking puposes. I'm not claiming that would be cheap, practical or fair, but the choice exists. Finally, please look up "Godwin's law"!!! :D

Bottled water will only work to a point. I might buy it but outside of my own home I have no control over whom would use the water supply: restaurants, shops etc. It can also be absorbed by the body through bathing. I personally do not wish to be subjected to it, therefore it is my right not to have to.

If we assume that that right exists - Where do the people of Hartlepool fit with it?

Completely agree with Redback on this one.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Completely agree with Redback on this one.

Blimey - I need to have a bit of a sit-down now Andy!!! :D

Redback is what you could be after a session with Andy Locks Heath, rather you than me. Where of course the unlucky residents of Hartlepool are is without their civil rights or at least those residents who have sussed this outright deception cloaked inevitably in 'science'. These same residents were no doubt also fed the same canard years ago about fluorosilicates being exactly the same as natural fluoride, one of the many untruths still peddled by the British Fluoridation Society -- aka the Flat Earth Society of Medical Science( www.ukcaf.org). Hampshire residents are more fortunate and rightly sceptical of this scam, excluding of course such as Andy Locks Heath who seems even more naive than myself on this issue. As for Godwin's law, maybe Ceaucescu (Sp?) would have been a better comparison, after all he had as little respect for individual rights as some other 20th Century dictators. And Redbrick, please, individual rights are still important no matter that they are being trodden on by unelected 'health' experts and others including a number of surely soon-to-be-deselecte
d Hampshire councillors?

Of course individual rights are important. This is a pretty civil discussion so far - let's not start making straw man arguments.



Councillors should have nothing to do with the decision. Public Health Directors should - it's what we pay them for. And whatever the conspiraloons claim, the vast majority of physicians have the patient's interest as their no. 1 priority. Some of them show it in a funny way though I'll concede!

You misunderstand re Hartlepool. Their water has a natural flouride content of >1ppm. Do they have a right to flouride-free water?

I suspect your response is something to do with this: You state that natural and 'added' flouride are different in some important way. That's contrary to everything I've read. Can you give me a good link to your counter argument? I'd like to read and assess.

Why have you begun your comment with what appears to be an unprovoked homophobic slur against Andy by the way?

Thank you Redback re Hartlepool's water fluoride content. For the difference re naturally occurring v artificial fluorides please see Barry Groves "Fluoride: Drinking ourselves to death? pp 193-4.
Re the good Andy, anyone with whom he completely agrees could be at risk of being back-slapped and this prompted the link to your soubriquet which was just too tempting an image to overlook ...nothing homophobic intended.
Isn't it ironic that you started this discussion supporting experts taking this decision for Hampshire people and are now acknowledging valid questions raised by many non-experts who have learned a lot about this subject which directly undermines so-called expert opinion on fluoridation. Its back to individual rights and I am sorry its not good enough for you to just admit they are important, they are over-riding and happen to be backed up by international legislation on the administration of medicines, a topic that was covered in depth at the Nuremburg trials. That is one of the main reasons fluorides are not permitted in German drinking water.

naive wrote:
Thank you Redback re Hartlepool's water fluoride content. For the difference re naturally occurring v artificial fluorides please see Barry Groves "Fluoride: Drinking ourselves to death? pp 193-4. Re the good Andy, anyone with whom he completely agrees could be at risk of being back-slapped and this prompted the link to your soubriquet which was just too tempting an image to overlook ...nothing homophobic intended. Isn't it ironic that you started this discussion supporting experts taking this decision for Hampshire people and are now acknowledging valid questions raised by many non-experts who have learned a lot about this subject which directly undermines so-called expert opinion on fluoridation. Its back to individual rights and I am sorry its not good enough for you to just admit they are important, they are over-riding and happen to be backed up by international legislation on the administration of medicines, a topic that was covered in depth at the Nuremburg trials. That is one of the main reasons fluorides are not permitted in German drinking water.

Thanks for your reply naive.

I'm glad I had misunderstood your comment re Andy. Homophobic slurs seem quite common on here, but I'm happy that wasn't the case in this instance.

I'm afraid "Dr" Bazza Groves is a quack:

http://holfordwatch.
info/2008/11/07/the-
telegraph-the-end-of
-more-illusions/

He's an elictrical engineer that has reinvented himelf very profitably as a 'nutritionist'. Proper academics don't buy their doctorates off the internet.

I see no irony or contradiction in my position:

1) I see no point in a referendum. As stated, there is no value in garnering the opinions of a large number of uninformed people.

2) My personal opinion is that there is not enough evidence EITHER WAY to make a proper decision. In this case, I believe that the decision should be NOT to add flouride until sufficient evidence has been gathered and analysed.

"Its back to individual rights and I am sorry its not good enough for you to just admit they are important"
Oh, do put the violin down! I think the legal aspect is interesting, and will not be properly resolved until we get an ECHR test case. The points you make in that area are valid, but the existence of natural flouride levels higher than those proposed in some areas complicates the matter.

Ps - if you can give me something peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal regarding natural vs 'added' flouride I'd still be very interested.

Peer-review is crucial if evidence is to be taken at all seriously though. Evidence based practice and the opportunity for scrutiny is all.

Hold on a second there Redback, please, don’t let your prejudices cloud your otherwise sound reasoning, based as it still seems to be on failing to find compelling evidence for fluoridation.

I don’t want to bore other followers of the blog but please can we go back for a moment to September 2000, as a bit of recent history is illuminating.?
It was then that the FIRST EVER systematic review of the peer-reviewed – please note – research into fluoridation was published (by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York). Now like your good self with no agenda other than to objectively assess the science, the York reviewers could find no sound science to support fluoridation
. What they did find was that any small benefit was outweighed by the disbenefit of dental fluorosis. Anecdotal evidence from the time suggests that the reviewers themselves were hugely surprised by this absence of good evidence, however as scientists, they told it as they saw it .

Reasonable observers might have thought that was the end of fluoridation in the UK however this did not suit the British Fluoridation Society and the BDA, who simply misrepresented York’s conclusions and have continued doing so, in order to fluoridate large areas of Britain no matter what . This shameful public deception was repeated in Southampton in February this year by the South Central Strategic Health Authority after a manifestly flawed public consultation designed once again to cover up the failings of fluoridation.

Your prejudice against electronic engineering trained writers on medical issues looks a little misguided when you consider, if you will for a moment, that Barry Groves’ book on fluoridation –published in 2001 – simply set out for the lay reader most of the same conclusions just reached by the York reviewers, besides of course revealing many other directly-relevant political shenanigans in the UK and abroad.

The fact that Barry Groves exposed the naked propaganda of the British Fluoridation Society (Flat Earth Society of Medicine) and its methods, is possibly the book’s greatest strength. Anyone who wishes to really understand how they or their community have been or could still be, duped into accepting fluoridation of their drinking water, should definitely read it. I realise that you, who believe that the case for fluoridation has not been made anyway, have other reasons not to read it, however others need to be aware of the essentially propagandist character of the fluoridation message, devoid as it is of scientific substance.

Sorry about my violin, Redback, but I simply will not allow that , barring the prevention of a REAL AND UNAVOIDABLE threat to public health, medical decisions affecting every individual be made for them by health experts alone. Call me an old-fashioned democrat if you will, but councillors are supposed to represent the will of local people and if they don’t, these councillors can be voted out at the next election. By contrast the non-Hampshire-reside
nt experts in the SHA are accountable to the very recently resigned vice president of the Flat Earth Society of Medicine and current Health Secretary, Andy Burnham. I know which of these I would prefer to have represent my interests.

Great post. I'll go have a look at the York study - thanks.

Right, I've had a look. I don't agree that they found that any benefit was 'outweighed' by disbenefits - but it IS very clear that the study supports exactly what I've been saying; that there is just not enough evidence to make a judgement either way.

http://www.york.ac.u
k/inst/crd/fluoridne
w.htm