UK - Forced Water Fluoridation
Forced Water Fluoridation By Dr. John Briffa
I was thinking about the concept of informed consent while recently reading a story that concerns the fluoridation of water. While some individuals present water fluoridation as a no-brainer, there are indeed plenty of reasons to be wary of it.
For a start, the most comprehensive analysis of the effects of water fluoridation have revealed that it helped prevent dental decay in approximately one in six individuals, while it causes dental damage (dental fluorosis) in about one in two.
On top of this, we have the fact that fluoride is a potentially toxic substance and has been linked with diverse adverse effects on health.
Proponents often seem less than keen to provide a balanced view on fluoridation by informing individuals of the potential problems associated with the practice.
The story I was reading concerns Southampton. The Strategic Health Authority in the area (South Central Strategic Health Authority—SCSHA) has essentially compelled the water company in the area to add fluoride to the water supply. Before this, though, the SCSHA put the proposal out for consultation. Of the 10,000-odd people who expressed an opinion, almost three-quarters opposed the introduction of fluoridation. But the SCSHA is now compelling the relevant water company to do it anyway.
There’s an obvious problem here, isn’t there? What’s the point of putting something out for public consultation if, then, you’re going to simply ignore the wishes of the majority of those individuals? This is hardly democracy in action.
So, now, whether they like it or not, 200,000-odd people have no choice but to have fluoridated water piped into their homes. Claims that fluoride can prevent tooth decay mean that it is essentially being used here as a medicament. So, what we have here is a situation where individuals are being mass-medicated (without their consent, remember).
The administration of this medication will not, obviously, take into account need or past medical history. Also, the dosage will not be specified by a doctor or dentist. It will be dictated by individuals themselves and depend on how thirsty they are.
Taking all of this into account, it’s difficult, I think, to make a case for water fluoridation on public health grounds. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to consider whether there is any evidence that the practice of water fluoridation has been pushed at us (and even forced on us) as a result of commercial and political influence and agenda.
Dr. John Briffa is a London-based physician and health writer with an interest in nutrition and natural medicine. His Web site is drbriffa.com
I was thinking about the concept of informed consent while recently reading a story that concerns the fluoridation of water. While some individuals present water fluoridation as a no-brainer, there are indeed plenty of reasons to be wary of it.
For a start, the most comprehensive analysis of the effects of water fluoridation have revealed that it helped prevent dental decay in approximately one in six individuals, while it causes dental damage (dental fluorosis) in about one in two.
On top of this, we have the fact that fluoride is a potentially toxic substance and has been linked with diverse adverse effects on health.
Proponents often seem less than keen to provide a balanced view on fluoridation by informing individuals of the potential problems associated with the practice.
The story I was reading concerns Southampton. The Strategic Health Authority in the area (South Central Strategic Health Authority—SCSHA) has essentially compelled the water company in the area to add fluoride to the water supply. Before this, though, the SCSHA put the proposal out for consultation. Of the 10,000-odd people who expressed an opinion, almost three-quarters opposed the introduction of fluoridation. But the SCSHA is now compelling the relevant water company to do it anyway.
There’s an obvious problem here, isn’t there? What’s the point of putting something out for public consultation if, then, you’re going to simply ignore the wishes of the majority of those individuals? This is hardly democracy in action.
So, now, whether they like it or not, 200,000-odd people have no choice but to have fluoridated water piped into their homes. Claims that fluoride can prevent tooth decay mean that it is essentially being used here as a medicament. So, what we have here is a situation where individuals are being mass-medicated (without their consent, remember).
The administration of this medication will not, obviously, take into account need or past medical history. Also, the dosage will not be specified by a doctor or dentist. It will be dictated by individuals themselves and depend on how thirsty they are.
Taking all of this into account, it’s difficult, I think, to make a case for water fluoridation on public health grounds. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to consider whether there is any evidence that the practice of water fluoridation has been pushed at us (and even forced on us) as a result of commercial and political influence and agenda.
Dr. John Briffa is a London-based physician and health writer with an interest in nutrition and natural medicine. His Web site is drbriffa.com
posted by Bill at
10:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home