From Paul Connett
An ambitious campaign against an unacceptable reality
12/19/2011 20:52:00 admin
Dear Readers,
Before I discuss my involvement with fluoridation here is a quick update on our fundraiser.
In our effort to raise $100,000 from 500 or more donors by December 31, we have raised $16,621 from 191 donors and that includes several large donations. We can always hope for a few more large contributions but we cannot bank on it. We have to continue to strive for a lot of smaller donations from many more people. This is a classic case of every single donation making a difference not only to our final total but also to the morale of all those working on this issue around the world. You can make a tax-deductible donation here or use the donation and premium details below.
My Involvement with Fluoridation
While fluoridation dominates my activities in North America, elsewhere I am more involved in promoting a Zero Waste strategy as an alternative to building polluting landfills and incinerators and as a stepping-stone to sustainability.
John Lennon wrote in one of his songs, "Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans." This sums up my life very well. Just when I thought I had found a balance between my teaching responsibilities at St. Lawrence University and my pro bono work on waste (an issue that over the last 26 years has taken me to 49 states in the U.S., seven provinces in Canada and 53 other countries) my wife asked me to get involved with fighting water fluoridation. That little diversion has lasted 15 years and culminated last year in the publication of the book I co-authored with James Beck and Spedding Micklem The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There. (Chelsea Green, Oct 2010).
When we published our book I thought it would raise the level of the debate. It has not. The promoters have not produced a single scientific response to our text. They have so much money to spin the issue that they have simply ignored this book, just as they ignored the landmark NRC report on fluoride's toxicology of 2006.
This is nothing new. The promoters have ignored the demands of normal scientific debate for over 60 years. Instead, they have used two strategies: 1) insist that "authority" is on their side using a list of endorsements and 2) claim that opponents know nothing about "real science."
Both strategies have worked superbly because they have served to intimidate most doctors, dentists and academics and kept them from reading the literature for themselves. Additionally, every time that more strong scientific evidence is presented that would convince anyone with an open mind that fluoridation is a bad idea (e.g. Bassin's study on osteosarcoma; the 25 IQ studies; Li's study on hip fractures, etc.), we have people supposedly "on our own side" giving these studies the kiss of death with nutty rants about Hitler and Stalin. I sometimes wonder if the proponents pay these people!
Every day I am confronted by the fact that the world doesn't really function on a rational level on this and many other issues. As a scientist concerned about health this is a painful realization. Who would have thought that there are health professionals out there who would lend their names to a practice that may be harming people - may even be killing a few young men with osteosarcoma -without examining the issue carefully for themselves? Who would have thought that there are public health officers who confidently tell decision makers that it is "safe and effective" simply because their employer (e.g. Health Canada; CDC; UK Ministry of Health; Australian health authorities in every state etc) tells them to do so.
I keep going for several reasons. Firstly, I am working with some really wonderful people around the world who continue to stand up for the truth on this issue. Secondly, I realize that other people in history have fought even harder battles with far more pain and sacrifice and have finally won against the odds. I remember reading a statement from the South African author Alan Paton (Cry the beloved Country) during the apartheid era, "The only way to endure man's inhumanity to man is to make one's own life an example of man's humanity to man." Those few words have inspired me ever since.
I remember telling my wife on the first day of my involvement (July 6 1996), "This is going to be easy. When the village trustees hear what I have read this afternoon there is no way they are going to continue to fluoridate our water." I was wrong. It took us another seven and half years to get fluoride out of our water. This isn't easy at all. Even with the many successes of this year (over 30 communities have stopped fluoridation since the vote in Waterloo, Ontario on October 25, 2010) we still have to brace ourselves for the long haul.
That is why we need to make the Fluoride Action Network into a sustainable entity with professional staff. We started to do this last year and have had wonderful success with the two people we hired: Tara Blank, PhD, to handle the science and Stuart Cooper to handle campaign details. We could only to do this because we were left a major bequest from the late and lovely Carol Patton. But you cannot run a sustainable campaign on capital. To be sustainable you have to run it on income. That is why we are engaged in the formidable task of raising $100,000 by midnight December 31.
So I ask you: do you want to see fluoridation ended in your lifetime? Do you have any better ideas of accomplishing that than by running a campaign to educate the public, media and decision makers on the truth of this matter? Do you think that such a campaign can be run without professional staff?
Based on the answers to those questions I hope that you will consider making a tax-deductible donation towards our efforts (donation and premium details below).
Meanwhile, a huge thank you to all of you who have donated so far and for all the other things you are doing in your community to end fluoridation.
Paul Connett
Director of FAN
12/19/2011 20:52:00 admin
Dear Readers,
Before I discuss my involvement with fluoridation here is a quick update on our fundraiser.
In our effort to raise $100,000 from 500 or more donors by December 31, we have raised $16,621 from 191 donors and that includes several large donations. We can always hope for a few more large contributions but we cannot bank on it. We have to continue to strive for a lot of smaller donations from many more people. This is a classic case of every single donation making a difference not only to our final total but also to the morale of all those working on this issue around the world. You can make a tax-deductible donation here or use the donation and premium details below.
My Involvement with Fluoridation
While fluoridation dominates my activities in North America, elsewhere I am more involved in promoting a Zero Waste strategy as an alternative to building polluting landfills and incinerators and as a stepping-stone to sustainability.
John Lennon wrote in one of his songs, "Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans." This sums up my life very well. Just when I thought I had found a balance between my teaching responsibilities at St. Lawrence University and my pro bono work on waste (an issue that over the last 26 years has taken me to 49 states in the U.S., seven provinces in Canada and 53 other countries) my wife asked me to get involved with fighting water fluoridation. That little diversion has lasted 15 years and culminated last year in the publication of the book I co-authored with James Beck and Spedding Micklem The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There. (Chelsea Green, Oct 2010).
When we published our book I thought it would raise the level of the debate. It has not. The promoters have not produced a single scientific response to our text. They have so much money to spin the issue that they have simply ignored this book, just as they ignored the landmark NRC report on fluoride's toxicology of 2006.
This is nothing new. The promoters have ignored the demands of normal scientific debate for over 60 years. Instead, they have used two strategies: 1) insist that "authority" is on their side using a list of endorsements and 2) claim that opponents know nothing about "real science."
Both strategies have worked superbly because they have served to intimidate most doctors, dentists and academics and kept them from reading the literature for themselves. Additionally, every time that more strong scientific evidence is presented that would convince anyone with an open mind that fluoridation is a bad idea (e.g. Bassin's study on osteosarcoma; the 25 IQ studies; Li's study on hip fractures, etc.), we have people supposedly "on our own side" giving these studies the kiss of death with nutty rants about Hitler and Stalin. I sometimes wonder if the proponents pay these people!
Every day I am confronted by the fact that the world doesn't really function on a rational level on this and many other issues. As a scientist concerned about health this is a painful realization. Who would have thought that there are health professionals out there who would lend their names to a practice that may be harming people - may even be killing a few young men with osteosarcoma -without examining the issue carefully for themselves? Who would have thought that there are public health officers who confidently tell decision makers that it is "safe and effective" simply because their employer (e.g. Health Canada; CDC; UK Ministry of Health; Australian health authorities in every state etc) tells them to do so.
I keep going for several reasons. Firstly, I am working with some really wonderful people around the world who continue to stand up for the truth on this issue. Secondly, I realize that other people in history have fought even harder battles with far more pain and sacrifice and have finally won against the odds. I remember reading a statement from the South African author Alan Paton (Cry the beloved Country) during the apartheid era, "The only way to endure man's inhumanity to man is to make one's own life an example of man's humanity to man." Those few words have inspired me ever since.
I remember telling my wife on the first day of my involvement (July 6 1996), "This is going to be easy. When the village trustees hear what I have read this afternoon there is no way they are going to continue to fluoridate our water." I was wrong. It took us another seven and half years to get fluoride out of our water. This isn't easy at all. Even with the many successes of this year (over 30 communities have stopped fluoridation since the vote in Waterloo, Ontario on October 25, 2010) we still have to brace ourselves for the long haul.
That is why we need to make the Fluoride Action Network into a sustainable entity with professional staff. We started to do this last year and have had wonderful success with the two people we hired: Tara Blank, PhD, to handle the science and Stuart Cooper to handle campaign details. We could only to do this because we were left a major bequest from the late and lovely Carol Patton. But you cannot run a sustainable campaign on capital. To be sustainable you have to run it on income. That is why we are engaged in the formidable task of raising $100,000 by midnight December 31.
So I ask you: do you want to see fluoridation ended in your lifetime? Do you have any better ideas of accomplishing that than by running a campaign to educate the public, media and decision makers on the truth of this matter? Do you think that such a campaign can be run without professional staff?
Based on the answers to those questions I hope that you will consider making a tax-deductible donation towards our efforts (donation and premium details below).
Meanwhile, a huge thank you to all of you who have donated so far and for all the other things you are doing in your community to end fluoridation.
Paul Connett
Director of FAN
posted by Bill at
9:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home