UK - Daily Echo - Strong opposition to use of fluoride
Strong opposition to use of fluoride
OPEN letter on the British Dental Association manifesto.
I received the British Dental Association letter to candidates for the general election, forwarded from Green Party headquarters. I need to make it clear to you that I cannot support your manifesto, particularly point five on the promotion of fluoride. In fact I very strongly oppose the use of fluoride as it is:
• Ineffective (the supposed benefits are more than outweighed by the disbenefits, even if the flawed and biased data for five-year-olds is to be accepted).
• Unethical (it is wrong to force everyone to take 'medication' via their tap water).
• Unsafe (there is a mass of peer-reviewed and published scientific data giving grave concerns over the health effects of fluoride).
• Uneconomic (the supposed savings from fewer fillings is more than outweighed by the costs of delivery and the 'externality' costs of dental fluorosis. Even assuming no more serious side effects for which there is a mass of evidence).
The addition of fluoride to the water supply has been a massive local issue in Southampton and after a thoroughly disgraceful and biased public consultation the population were not fooled and have voted repeatedly against adding fluoride. Every serious candidate in the parliamentary elections in Southampton now opposes the introduction of fluoride against the wishes of the population.
The BDA needs to look at the science with a properly open mind and realise that fluoride affects much more than the teeth. Introducing it to the water supply leads to systemic fluoride poisoning. The data on benefits to five-year-old children's teeth is biased, as in fact that result comes from the systemic poisoning of our children, as those in fluoridated areas have their teeth erupt around a year later (more than 50 studies have shown
this). With teeth erupting later it means that the teeth have been exposed for less time, meaning fewer cavities. If you look at the difference later in life there is no statistically significant difference in cavities (if you want to quote to me the recent meta-study please read it properly before misinterpreting the findings).
So I call on the BDA to do some proper scientific homework and stop promoting fluoride. I will certainly oppose water fluoridation at this election and wherever I can.
JOHN SPOTTISWOODE,
BSc, BA, PMP
Green Party candidate for Southampton lichen.
OPEN letter on the British Dental Association manifesto.
I received the British Dental Association letter to candidates for the general election, forwarded from Green Party headquarters. I need to make it clear to you that I cannot support your manifesto, particularly point five on the promotion of fluoride. In fact I very strongly oppose the use of fluoride as it is:
• Ineffective (the supposed benefits are more than outweighed by the disbenefits, even if the flawed and biased data for five-year-olds is to be accepted).
• Unethical (it is wrong to force everyone to take 'medication' via their tap water).
• Unsafe (there is a mass of peer-reviewed and published scientific data giving grave concerns over the health effects of fluoride).
• Uneconomic (the supposed savings from fewer fillings is more than outweighed by the costs of delivery and the 'externality' costs of dental fluorosis. Even assuming no more serious side effects for which there is a mass of evidence).
The addition of fluoride to the water supply has been a massive local issue in Southampton and after a thoroughly disgraceful and biased public consultation the population were not fooled and have voted repeatedly against adding fluoride. Every serious candidate in the parliamentary elections in Southampton now opposes the introduction of fluoride against the wishes of the population.
The BDA needs to look at the science with a properly open mind and realise that fluoride affects much more than the teeth. Introducing it to the water supply leads to systemic fluoride poisoning. The data on benefits to five-year-old children's teeth is biased, as in fact that result comes from the systemic poisoning of our children, as those in fluoridated areas have their teeth erupt around a year later (more than 50 studies have shown
this). With teeth erupting later it means that the teeth have been exposed for less time, meaning fewer cavities. If you look at the difference later in life there is no statistically significant difference in cavities (if you want to quote to me the recent meta-study please read it properly before misinterpreting the findings).
So I call on the BDA to do some proper scientific homework and stop promoting fluoride. I will certainly oppose water fluoridation at this election and wherever I can.
JOHN SPOTTISWOODE,
BSc, BA, PMP
Green Party candidate for Southampton lichen.
posted by Bill at
10:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home