.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

USA - letter - Misinformation, intimidation

Chuck Gregory’s Oct. 21 letter is a good example of the political tactics or MO used by fluoridationists the past 70 years against those who have opposed adding fluorosilicic acid to drinking water. Intimidation and name calling and outright firing of scientists in the Centers for Disease Control have been the norm, and we will see such bullying again as more people sign the Rutland City ballot initiative to bring the fluoridation issue to a democratic vote by the people.
One other MO used is misinformation conveyed on fluorosilicic acid, as also evidenced in Gregory’s letter. Comparing fluoride to oxygen is an attempt to divert the issue rather than have to talk about the real science, not the stuff put together by the industry and promoted by the dentists so the fertilizer companies can continue to sell their product to the people.
This past year, the Cochrane Group, internationally recognized as using the highest standards in evidence-based health care, reviewed the science supporting fluoridation and reported 97 percent of it was limited due to the observational nature of the study designs with a high risk of bias within the studies.
Cochrane said the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles was unclear because the majority of the studies were conducted before fluoride toothpastes and other preventive measures were widely used in many communities around the world.
That is what “the expert scientific council” said about fluoride science that Dr. Bookwalter was referring to in his Rutland Herald op-ed article on Sunday, Oct. 25. Fear tactics as an MO were also being used by Dr. Bookwalter when he referred to the contagious diseases of small pox and Ebola when talking about fluoride.
Gregory suggesting the dental health of Brattleboro’s children be studied by Rutland begs the question on why our own Vermont Public Health Department, which favors fluoridation, has not ever asked for nor commissioned such a study of Vermont communities with and without fluorosilicic acid added to drinking water. As fluoride is a known endocrine disruptor, what are the rates of thyroid disease in a population like Bennington, which never added fluorosilicic acid, compared to a similar population that is still drinking this hazardous waste product? What are the rates of dental fluorosis in kids bottle fed infant formula made with tap water because their parents were never told not to mix the formula with the tap water as there was a risk of fluorosis? That is why best practice in health care today is called informed consent.
Rutland City


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home