Australia - Sorry, but the anti-fluoride campaign is .. still Nazism
PETER MOORE: Sorry, but the anti-fluoride campaign is .. still Nazism
22Jan08
I FEEL suitably chastised that the anti-fluoride lobby thinks my comments about it are virulent and denigrating. In the article, I said, ``However, the big local issue (this year) will be combating the forces of evil in the shape of the anti-fluoride Nazis''. I can only apologise as the sentence does appear to be somewhat overly colourful and intemperate.
In the interest of clarity and maintaining harmonious relations with the wider community, let me explain what I meant to say. I believe the anti-fluoride campaign is to dental health what the Catholic church was to Copernicanism. Think a cardigan-wearing veganism that feel sport shouldn't be taught in schools and consider exams to be too competitive resulting in lack of esteem among young adults. When not worrying about the cost of dental health _ because its teeth keep falling out _ it concentrates its energies on promoting phrenology and crystal healing. Think a reality-challenged campaign incapable of comprehending a scientific report. Think a campaign with an ancestry back to the Luddites sent to the penal colony in the early 1820s and still embracing the same antediluvian values.
Think the ``I've got no idea what I'm talking about but I think there's a world-wide conspiracy to kill everyone'' breed; absolutely no proof of any statement is given. Even if we assume such arguments as ``fluoride is only effective topically'' is based on experience as dentists over the last 20 years or perhaps as acclaimed research pharmacologist at a prestigious university _ which I rather doubt _ where is the supportive evidence?
The anti-fluoride campaign is short on facts. My criticism extends also to the 21 Victorian medical practitioners who urged the Health Department to be cautious. Never mind that the GP Association of Geelong endorses fluoridation as does every other concerned and official organisation in the area and nationally _ Glastonbury, Bethany, Barwon Health and dental bodies et al. I hope that clears up my earlier injudicious comments with a more modest use of language.
On December 19, the Addy ran the headline ``Anger at GPs' fluoride push'' featuring members of the self-styled Barwon Association for Freedom from Fluoride. It argued the 2006 report from the USA National Research Council found no safety margin between dental protection and damage to organs. Absolute rubbish. The American Dental Association said of the report: ``We emphasise that the just-released report on fluoride only addresses the levels of naturally-occurring fluoride in drinking water that exceed the EPA's current recommendations. It in no way examines or calls into question the safety of community water fluoridation.'' None of this impresses the anti-fluoride Nazi campaign which will continue to misquote and take out of context anything that suits its purpose.
Fluoride is everywhere, including in the sea we swim in, and the people of Port Fairy and Portland have been drinking it (in therapeutic doses) since settlement and so far appear to have staved off the horrendous effects of bone cancer and organ damage while retaining a good set of choppers. Give us non-believers one piece of research that has been reviewed and accepted by a recognised authority. Take your pick from Australian, American, British or Canadian dental associations, The World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Physicians and the Department of Health (UK), British Medical Association, Queensland Health, etc. In the meantime, how are anti-fluoride campaigners' macrobiotic, organic but still fluoride-containing vegie gardens doing? Does singing to them really help?
Just in case people out there are wondering where our illustrious leaders, the city council, stand on this issue, I have bad news. The councillors don't have a position on fluoride as it isn't their responsibility. To quote the mayor: ``There is no collective view. Fluoridation is a State Government issue. Council is not the responsible authority for managing the local water supply.'' Roughly translated for the uninitiated what he is actually saying is: ``You must be kidding. We could lose votes whichever way we turn here. I know we are supposed to be leaders but we're not suicidal idiots.''
Let's hope the Government doesn't decide to build a nuclear power plant at Eastern Beach as the CoGG would presumably find this too contentious as well.
22Jan08
I FEEL suitably chastised that the anti-fluoride lobby thinks my comments about it are virulent and denigrating. In the article, I said, ``However, the big local issue (this year) will be combating the forces of evil in the shape of the anti-fluoride Nazis''. I can only apologise as the sentence does appear to be somewhat overly colourful and intemperate.
In the interest of clarity and maintaining harmonious relations with the wider community, let me explain what I meant to say. I believe the anti-fluoride campaign is to dental health what the Catholic church was to Copernicanism. Think a cardigan-wearing veganism that feel sport shouldn't be taught in schools and consider exams to be too competitive resulting in lack of esteem among young adults. When not worrying about the cost of dental health _ because its teeth keep falling out _ it concentrates its energies on promoting phrenology and crystal healing. Think a reality-challenged campaign incapable of comprehending a scientific report. Think a campaign with an ancestry back to the Luddites sent to the penal colony in the early 1820s and still embracing the same antediluvian values.
Think the ``I've got no idea what I'm talking about but I think there's a world-wide conspiracy to kill everyone'' breed; absolutely no proof of any statement is given. Even if we assume such arguments as ``fluoride is only effective topically'' is based on experience as dentists over the last 20 years or perhaps as acclaimed research pharmacologist at a prestigious university _ which I rather doubt _ where is the supportive evidence?
The anti-fluoride campaign is short on facts. My criticism extends also to the 21 Victorian medical practitioners who urged the Health Department to be cautious. Never mind that the GP Association of Geelong endorses fluoridation as does every other concerned and official organisation in the area and nationally _ Glastonbury, Bethany, Barwon Health and dental bodies et al. I hope that clears up my earlier injudicious comments with a more modest use of language.
On December 19, the Addy ran the headline ``Anger at GPs' fluoride push'' featuring members of the self-styled Barwon Association for Freedom from Fluoride. It argued the 2006 report from the USA National Research Council found no safety margin between dental protection and damage to organs. Absolute rubbish. The American Dental Association said of the report: ``We emphasise that the just-released report on fluoride only addresses the levels of naturally-occurring fluoride in drinking water that exceed the EPA's current recommendations. It in no way examines or calls into question the safety of community water fluoridation.'' None of this impresses the anti-fluoride Nazi campaign which will continue to misquote and take out of context anything that suits its purpose.
Fluoride is everywhere, including in the sea we swim in, and the people of Port Fairy and Portland have been drinking it (in therapeutic doses) since settlement and so far appear to have staved off the horrendous effects of bone cancer and organ damage while retaining a good set of choppers. Give us non-believers one piece of research that has been reviewed and accepted by a recognised authority. Take your pick from Australian, American, British or Canadian dental associations, The World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Physicians and the Department of Health (UK), British Medical Association, Queensland Health, etc. In the meantime, how are anti-fluoride campaigners' macrobiotic, organic but still fluoride-containing vegie gardens doing? Does singing to them really help?
Just in case people out there are wondering where our illustrious leaders, the city council, stand on this issue, I have bad news. The councillors don't have a position on fluoride as it isn't their responsibility. To quote the mayor: ``There is no collective view. Fluoridation is a State Government issue. Council is not the responsible authority for managing the local water supply.'' Roughly translated for the uninitiated what he is actually saying is: ``You must be kidding. We could lose votes whichever way we turn here. I know we are supposed to be leaders but we're not suicidal idiots.''
Let's hope the Government doesn't decide to build a nuclear power plant at Eastern Beach as the CoGG would presumably find this too contentious as well.
posted by Bill at
10:03 AM
2 Comments:
Peter Moore has tried to say sorry for his intemperate crazy labeling of fluoride opponents as Nazis.
But his intemperate crazyness just gets repeated again and again. Are professional journalists allowed to be as bad as dentists who also blindly accept the dental claim of complete safety when the science says it is not?
He dismisses the scientific concerns of the US National Research Council's 2006 12 member scientific panel that investigated the the toxicologic effects of fluoridated water because of what the dentists say!
But what is frightening about this fellow is that while his rabid unscientific support for fluoridation is like something from the dark ages, it represents the same exact attitude taken by our dentists and health authorities.
By
Anonymous, at 22 January, 2008
Fluoride was used by the Nazis, to call those who oppose mass medication via the water supplies Nazis, is absurd. It was a Nazis plan to mass medicate and render populations docile. Fluoride was used in rat poison and is a component of Rat poison. It would be safer to address the cause of tooth decay, SUGAR, not that that should be replaced by artificial sweeteners which have their own issues.
By
Anonymous, at 05 February, 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home