Science is lacking for fluoridation argument; Letters
Science is lacking for fluoridation argument; Letters
Western Daily Press
September 6, 2011
Since the Director of Public Prosecutions appears to have put a spoke in the Prime Minister's wheel by insisting that all criminal acts are treated on the proverbial level playing field, he won't be able to avoid using his big stick on the British Dental Association. Described as a trade union for dentists, the BDA, using assumed power very much out of scale with its political status, is about to engage in ramming through a measure of compulsory medication in the forthcoming debate on the Health and Social Care Bill.
This Bill has been on the Government's books for some time and now, having achieved a documentary blockbuster of 450 pages, it is being given all of two days of debate. How things have changed since the Fox Hunting Bill.
The BDA wants to dominate the debate with its nanny state insistence that fluoridation - the practice of poisoning everyone's drinking water - is a safe, proven and effective way of treating juvenile dental decay.
Global evidence accumulated over the last half century utterly refutes this proposition. Fluoridation has been widely discredited on ethical, physical and mental platforms. It is a scam devised by people in high places in health administration interested only in cashing in on its financial incentives.
However, more recently it has come under scrutiny by the European Court of Justice. The ECJ has been instrumental in the rigorous interpretation of the new definitions of water: tap water, medicinal water and functional water, the latter being related with our range of soft drinks. Medicinal water can be any water product for which a medicinal benefit has been claimed, whether true or false. Medicinal value takes precedence over functional and on that basis alone, statefluoridated water must be subject to the same pharmacological testing as applies to all medicines whether retailed or prescribed. Since the fluoridating agent in current use is an unrefined, untested waste product of the fertiliser industry, it could not, short of outright fraud, pass such a test and in those parts of the country, notably the West Midlands, which have been fluoridated for the last 40 years, a legitimacy test of that intervention is long overdue. Notwithstanding the current legislative position, the British Dental Association expects to plough on unobstructed with manipulating this Bill to its own self-centred advantage. That particular advantage lies in the vast sums to be made from treating - but never curing - the socially repulsive condition known as dental fluorosis, which will affect a substantial proportion of the fluoridated population, especially the young. At £300 plus per tooth, repeatable every five years, the treatment can only be privately funded since the NHS, having promoted fluoridation, has defined fluorosis as "merely cosmetic" and declines to include it within its agenda of low cost or free-of-charge treatments. The slogan in the US which introduced fluoridation as a legalised chemical fly-tipping cop-out for the defence industry was "Fluoride gives poor kids rich kids' teeth." Nothing could be further from the truth. The poorest children in the most fluoridated cities of America have the worst teeth of all. Fluorosis cosmetic dentistry is utterly beyond their means.
Fluoridation is illegal and cannot sustain any insurance claim. Bernard J Seward Henleaze, Bristol
Western Daily Press
September 6, 2011
Since the Director of Public Prosecutions appears to have put a spoke in the Prime Minister's wheel by insisting that all criminal acts are treated on the proverbial level playing field, he won't be able to avoid using his big stick on the British Dental Association. Described as a trade union for dentists, the BDA, using assumed power very much out of scale with its political status, is about to engage in ramming through a measure of compulsory medication in the forthcoming debate on the Health and Social Care Bill.
This Bill has been on the Government's books for some time and now, having achieved a documentary blockbuster of 450 pages, it is being given all of two days of debate. How things have changed since the Fox Hunting Bill.
The BDA wants to dominate the debate with its nanny state insistence that fluoridation - the practice of poisoning everyone's drinking water - is a safe, proven and effective way of treating juvenile dental decay.
Global evidence accumulated over the last half century utterly refutes this proposition. Fluoridation has been widely discredited on ethical, physical and mental platforms. It is a scam devised by people in high places in health administration interested only in cashing in on its financial incentives.
However, more recently it has come under scrutiny by the European Court of Justice. The ECJ has been instrumental in the rigorous interpretation of the new definitions of water: tap water, medicinal water and functional water, the latter being related with our range of soft drinks. Medicinal water can be any water product for which a medicinal benefit has been claimed, whether true or false. Medicinal value takes precedence over functional and on that basis alone, statefluoridated water must be subject to the same pharmacological testing as applies to all medicines whether retailed or prescribed. Since the fluoridating agent in current use is an unrefined, untested waste product of the fertiliser industry, it could not, short of outright fraud, pass such a test and in those parts of the country, notably the West Midlands, which have been fluoridated for the last 40 years, a legitimacy test of that intervention is long overdue. Notwithstanding the current legislative position, the British Dental Association expects to plough on unobstructed with manipulating this Bill to its own self-centred advantage. That particular advantage lies in the vast sums to be made from treating - but never curing - the socially repulsive condition known as dental fluorosis, which will affect a substantial proportion of the fluoridated population, especially the young. At £300 plus per tooth, repeatable every five years, the treatment can only be privately funded since the NHS, having promoted fluoridation, has defined fluorosis as "merely cosmetic" and declines to include it within its agenda of low cost or free-of-charge treatments. The slogan in the US which introduced fluoridation as a legalised chemical fly-tipping cop-out for the defence industry was "Fluoride gives poor kids rich kids' teeth." Nothing could be further from the truth. The poorest children in the most fluoridated cities of America have the worst teeth of all. Fluorosis cosmetic dentistry is utterly beyond their means.
Fluoridation is illegal and cannot sustain any insurance claim. Bernard J Seward Henleaze, Bristol
posted by Bill at
3:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home