4 JULY 2016 Ref: 626
U.K FREEDOM FROM FLUORIDE ALLIANCE Edition: 000-4
This is the last of four weekly editions of the pilot series for the UKFFFA
Doug Cross’ paper An unhealthy obsession with fluoride published in Nanotechnology Perceptions is available to download:
Doug examines the process by which public health policy promotes fluoridation, and the logical, statistical and ethical errors it involves.
Definition as non medical
MHCRA’s refusal to recognise fluoridation chemicals as medicine as defined by Jauncey is crucial to the fluoridationists’ case.
He explains the basic difference between the ‘de-ontological’ approach to public health that underscores the Convention on Human Rights and the ‘teleological’ , that justifies action on balance of public good. It is this latter goal-oriented approach that is open to misuse of statistics. It justifies itself by assigning monetary values to components and makes calculations as a ‘Risk Cost Benefit Analysis’ that ignore social costs.
Doug mentions the recently fashionable acceptance of the “nudge ” as an extension of this ‘paternalistic’ approach, although in essence it perhaps is no more than an example of the manipulative campaigning of Edward Bernays, whom he rightly credits with the early acceptance of fluoridation in the US.
He also reminds us of the huge amount of dollars spent by the US Public Health Service to first bribe the American Dental Association, to change their opposition, then to sell the idea to UK, Ireland Australia. and N Zealand.
The use of ‘men in white coats’; in this case, dentists, is certainly essential to the implementation of fluoridation as a ‘public health’ strategy. The stigmatising of critics as ignorant, reactionary, or mad – remember Strangelove – is necessary element. Doug quotes research that suggests that 10% of a profession voicing a strong opinion is a tipping point that the others will follow. To achieve this proportion the local authorities have to be influenced, with the help of embedding dentists in the current PHE structure.
Another plausible explanation is that there are one or two officials at a very senior level, effectively planted by the US as part of a continuing deal, who have been allowed to enforce their views over the years, and/or simply that no-one at the top could ever afford to admit their mistakes.
Doug makes an important distinction; inequality is not in itself inequity. Lower socio-economic status indicates inequality but not inequity. There will always be inequalities and a measure of society might be the elements of inequality that it treats as requiring attention, for example, by targeted services or progressive taxation. However, fluoridation, by causing fluorosis, fluoridation is an inequity because it is done to the community.
Design the propaganda
The paper describes the Health Belief Model , an attempt to explain why people do not seem to make the best choices for their health as also being significant in the thinking behind fluoridation as a public health measure. According to this model, the individuals perception is decided by: 1, their personal susceptibility to the threat; 2, its severity; 3, the benefits to avoiding it; and 4, barriers to accepting the recommendations.
So, fluoridation is shown as a danger, with exaggerated statistics, its severity emphasised with ‘ the worst teeth in the region /country’, and we are told of the plight of ‘disadvantaged’ children
However, if public health campaign remains based on unethical malpractice, then consent obtained through deception is illegitimate. Doug is identifies a wide range of statistical malpractices by the PHE including:
Misrepresentation of evidence of effectiveness and safety continue to be the PHE, cherry picking the York review, or confusing lack of evidence of danger with evidence of safety.
Use of data produced by the Health and Social Care Information Centre that has serious statistical flaws. For example, the actual mean decay rate in 5year-olds is usually zero . By showing percentages of the ‘selected’ non- zero group and using figures derived from very small samples the results were exaggerated. In 2013, their own guidelines for the minimum number of 200, required for usable analysis, were not provided in 90pc of cases.
Downplaying fluorosis by ignoring York review and other sources, a high ‘TFI index’ level as a base, and even, in one survey, suggesting that teeth with fluorosis are ‘ ranked higher’ in acceptability.
A particular mention is made of the 2015 report quoting the difference in admissions for general anaesthetics age 1 – 4 in fluoridated v non-fluoridated areas, which, surprisingly, does not point out that there are other reasons for discrepancies because of differing regional practices . Instead the 15 additional cases in a region of children with requiring such dental treatment is contrasted with the 250 children who will subsequently requiring treatment for dental disfigurement caused by fluoride.
Overall, this report is not really about ‘obsession’. It is a very powerful summary of the reasons we should always question the official line. This paper should be mandatory reading for all journalists who claim a belief in a democratically answerable government.
Finally a question from FF Ireland answered by Ann Wills should be of general interest
“I have been asked in Fluoride Free Water Ireland if there are any test results for the levels of toxic-fluoride (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid H2SiF6), in Irish products and drinks made up with fluoridated water in Ireland. If any country exports products made with fluoridated water, to worldwide consumers and to countries which ban fluoridated water, is there a risk of consumers in those countries which don’t fluoridate drinking water, getting doses of toxicity from the fluoride-compounds in the artificially treated water in the products, (either the sodium-fluoride, or the hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) which is currently used in Ireland, which contains, lead, arsenic and mercury?
Yes, that’s a very good question, because if some people want to avoid drinking fluoridated water, they may also be concerned about whether a processed food product is made up using fluoridated water. Many manufactured foods contain added water, such as soups, bread, beer etc. Ireland was concerned about whether the fact that their country is fluoridated would hinder their exports of dairy products etc. Below is an item from 2014 which I think Doug Cross provided facts about, which never seemed to be mentioned by the authorities etc. Here’s an extract of a letter at that time. Ann.
EC Regulation 1925/2006 lists all the chemicals that are authorised to be used to add a ‘mineral’ to any food. This Regulation allowed them to continue to use chemicals other than sodium & potassium fluoride to add the so-called ‘mineral’ fluoride to foods until 19th January 2014. After that, all further use of any unregistered substance – including fluorosilicic acid – was absolutely prohibited. Since our government failed to apply for derogation before the January 2010 deadline, they missed the boat. The legal & commercial implications are enormous. Any EC Member State can now refuse to allow the import of any food that has been prepared – or even just washed – with fluoridated water during its processing. This includes a potential ban on any foods from outside the EC – Australia, New Zealand, USA & any other countries that allow the contamination of public water supplies with this illegal ingredient. Details on: www.ukcaf.org It would damage our food industry & economy if our foods cannot be exported to the EU because they are processed with fluoridated water.
And a Useful resource of you-tube videos
The following contribution is part of the current battle to reverse the process of abandoning fluoridation in Canada. Below is the first part of a long article full of good reasoning. Its publication is followed by another battle with the trolls. As always,the full article is available from SWIS if you have any trouble following the links.
IS PUTTING FLUORIDE IN OUR WATER RATIONAL?
The Ontario government may soon require municipalities to fluoridate water — a contentious move that would reverse a direction Windsor took three years ago.
This would move decision-making away from local voters, and overturn many recent municipal government decisions to keep fluoride out of the water.
What happens if one examines this issue, not with the eyes of someone with an undergraduate degree in medicine (MD), or as a dentist who profits from applying topical fluoride treatments, but as someone trained as a social scientist, to conduct, evaluate, and teach research, with a research doctorate?
Since 2010, more than 150 North American communities have rejected water fluoridation, as many western European countries did much earlier.
Earlier this month, the city of Wakefield, England, banned fluoride. Last month it was Cornwall, Ontario.
Mainstream media and the usual powers-that-be, such as Health Departments, continue to tell us that fluoride prevents cavities and is safe to use.
They’re so committed to this idea that they’ve been medicating us with fluoride for decades, by adding it to our drinking and bathing water without our permission.
As a social scientist, it’s unclear to me what their motivations are, given the research that exists, which I have carefully examined.
Below, I will review some recent studies into the effects of fluoridation. What is very clear is that numerous studies document the serious, harmful effects of fluoride, for anyone with an open mind to see and weigh for themselves. Not all studies indicate harmful effects, but this is the way of scientific research. We base our recommendations upon the bulk of evidence.
What politicians need to know is that fluoride harms people, and as such, it is foolish and dangerous to add it to our drinking and bathing water. If people want to use fluoride, they can ….
It is apparent even from this small sample of the evidence I’ve studied that it is foolhardy and irresponsible to add hexafluorosilicic acid to the water we drink.
Dr. James Winter is a professor at the University of Windsor, who has taught research methods to graduate students, and has published many scholarly articles and books.
For more information on fluoride, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/
For a lengthy and extensive overview, see the article by Dr. Gary Null, “Fluoride, Killing Us Softly,” here:http://www.globalresearch.ca/fluoride-killing-us-softly/5360397
Also see: Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pfVo3bZLY
Watch a new 20-minute film on fluoridation and its effects, here:
In full from the Windsor Independent:
Article followed by a lengthy string of comments dominated by two trolls.
In preparation for the upcoming public hearing on water fluoridation, the Jonesborough Board of Mayor and Aldermen sent a survey to town residents to get more feedback from the community.
The survey, which filed into Jonesborough mailboxes last week, inform readers about the status of the board’s discussion on the matter and the upcoming public hearing. It contains a narrative signed by Mayor Kelly Wolfe that includes Jonesborough’s history with water
Wolfe’s letter said that in light of the massive outpouring of concern from the community, residents will have another venue to express their concerns in the form of the enclosed survey in addition to the public hearing next month. The public hearing will take place July 18 beginning at 6:30 p.m. at the Jonesborough Visitor Center.
Port Angeles, Washington
More on this bizarre story
PORT ANGELES — A ballot measure to make Port Angeles a second-class city would go before voters in November 2017, according to state statute, unless the City Council votes to put it on the upcoming general election ballot, City Attorney Bill Bloor said Thursday.
Bloor, who is reviewing the legality of the Our Water, Our Choice! petition for an election, said he hopes to determine the legality of the petition and offer options regarding a possible ballot measure to City Council members by their June 28 meeting….The deadline for filing resolutions for the fall general election ballot is Aug. 2.
…The petition was prompted by the City Council’s 4-3 decision Dec. 15 to continue fluoridation of city water until June 2026 “in order to elect a full new City Council,” according to the petition wording.
…Our Water, Our Choice! expects that, if voters approve a ballot measure based on the petition, all council members, including those elected in November 2017, would undergo an extra election outside the regular schedule set by state law.
Petition organizer Eloise Kailin of Sequim, who is president of Our Water, Our Choice!, said … ”The faster we get this behind us, the better everyone will be..The Fluoride Four is not wanting to ask me for my advice.”
The Amercian Dental association publicises its collection of videos, starting with ‘ Why fluoride in your tap water is a good thing’
Just thought you’d like to know..
An example of an attack that completely fails to address the question – in this case why children should limit their intake of fluoride
Fluoride Information Group Questions ‘Dentist Group’
Monday, 13 June 2016, 12:06 pm
Press Release: Making Sense of Fluoride
Fluoride Information Group Questions ‘Dentist Group’
Recent calls for children to use full strength fluoride toothpaste have been criticised by a fringe group calling itself the Fluoride Information Network for Dentists.
Making Sense of Fluoride president Daniel Ryan says media and the public need to be aware the so-called network run by anti-fluoride dentist Stan Litras has a minimal membership and does not represent the overwhelming scientific consensus on fluoride nor the position of the vast majority of his New Zealand colleagues.
The New Zealand Dental Association has a clear position supporting water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste, …