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

UK Against Fluoridation

Monday, August 06, 2018

F.A.N. Newsletter

Jane Austen would have a field day with an analysis of the emotions and behavior of the opponents and proponents of water fluoridation.
Opponents of fluoridation come from the head, the heart and the body.
Those who approach evidence with an open mind, quickly find evidence that this practice has the potential to cause more harm (especially to the developing brain, Bashash et al, 2017) than benefit (only a small and questionable reduction in tooth decay, Cochrane, 2015).
Those who approach the matter with the heart and their conscience, only need one argument: no government has the right to force the citizens under its jurisdiction to take a medicine without their informed consent. Unthinkable; no other argument is necessary.

Then there are others who discover the unacceptability of this practice via the evidence presented by their own bodies combined with careful observation. These are the people who are very sensitive to fluoride’s toxic effects. Their symptoms range from skin complaints (rashes, acne) through to skeletal and muscular conditions (pains in the joints) to neurological complaints (headaches) and tiredness not relieved by sleep. Sometimes after years of unsuccessful treatment of these conditions by a variety of doctors, these citizens discover that their own bodies are sensitive instruments to fluoride detection. They discover that their symptoms disappear as they avoid fluoride and reappear when they accidentally get re-exposed to fluoride. They are totally convinced, but medical professionals too often treat them like idiots. After 70 years of such complaints not one health body in the fluoridated world has done the decent and professional thing and investigated what they are content to call “anecdotal” reports with carefully designed double-blind studies.

In reality, toxicologists would expect that, if you expose a large population to a known toxic substance, a small percentage of the population will experience toxic effects. These people represent the sensitive tail end of the normal distribution of response. This is precisely why you should never deliberately expose the whole population to a toxic substance through the water supply. These canaries are exactly what you would expect.

Often those affected by this combined knowledge of physical sensitivity and professional indifference become fluoridation’s most vociferous and persistent opponents. I am thinking of the late Dr. Albert Burgstahler (for whom Dr. George Waldbott diagnosed his poor thyroid function to fluoride sensitivity); to Audrey Adams whose autistic son Kyle is supersensitive to fluoride; to Karen Spencer who after many years of painful symptoms--and failed professional diagnosis–finally identified herself that fluoride was the cause…and many others too numerous to identify.
And now comes Melissa Gallico who discovered that her acne cleared up when she went to unfluoridated Scotland (and other unfluoridated countries) and returned when she returned to the USA. She has published a book on her experiences.
And Melissa Gallicao has now produced a brilliant and creative video.
It is presented as a fairytale. In just 7 minutes and 16 seconds she combines science, poetry, history, logic and common sense to deliver a really powerful punch against this outdated practice.
With the clues provided in the title, I think our readers can finish this essay when it comes to what drives our opponents.


Paul Connett


Post a Comment

<< Home