3 Rutland: Crowther’s resolution with ‘whereases’

3 Rutland, Vermont

Mar 28

On March 22, Joint Resolution Senate 26 by Sen. Peg Flory of Rutland was introduced into the Vermont Senate and referred to the Health and Welfare Committee.

The resolution, which I drafted and which was fine-tuned in Legislative Council, aims to put the state of Vermont in a neutral position on public water fluoridation, in contrast to its present role of promoting fluoridation.

Neutrality would allow the state health department to be an honest broker of information on fluoridation rather than unabashedly selling it as a public health measure.

Vermonters are entitled to the truth about fluoridation, including its unproven effectiveness, its health risks and its obvious violation of informed consent.

Three years of study of fluoridation have made me a strong opponent of the measure, but the resolution permits the state to be neutral, neither for nor against, while the departments of health and environmental conservation conduct a study on the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

Among the points made in the “whereases” of the resolution are the following:

  • The scientific foundation for fluoridation has been and remains insufficient, when current standards for human therapeutic treatment are applied.

By putting fluoride into the water supply a municipality engages in mass medication of its population in violation of informed consent, a cornerstone of medical ethics.

  • A recent study in the prestigious Cochrane Review failed to confirm the effectiveness of fluoridation, illustrating one reason why water fluoridation remains a matter of public debate.
  • The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declared fluoride, for the purpose of preventing tooth decay, to be a drug. By putting fluoride into the water supply a municipality engages in mass medication of its population in violation of informed consent, a cornerstone of medical ethics.
  • Scientific evidence points to the likelihood of harm to a portion of the population from the ingestion of fluoride in the combined concentrations found in drinking water, foods, beverages, pesticides and toothpaste.
  • Civil rights advocates Andrew Young, whose father was a dentist; the Rev. Gerald Durley; and the League of United Latin American Citizens have all challenged and oppose the validity of fluoridation as a benefit for the poor.
  • The fluoridating chemicals municipalities use most frequently are hazardous waste byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry and lack sufficient guarantees of purity and safety.

Although it was trimmed from the final draft of the resolution, my original version notes that “most community-fluoridated water winds up being discharged from sewage plants into the waters of the state, with uncertain effects on their ecology.” The fact that fluoridation degrades the quality of Vermont’s waters is a point that should come up during any state review of fluoridation.

In their zeal to promote fluoridation, the dental profession and the state Department of Health fail to acknowledge the above issues.

With the Department of Health, one can only speculate on what pressure is felt from the federal government, which provides a large share of funding for state programs. The federal government is a forceful advocate for fluoridation.

J.R.S.26 offers a unique opportunity for us to put the brakes on the misguided practice of fluoridation, currently imposed on more than 200 million Americans. While I’m sure Sens. Flory and Claire Ayer, chair of the Health and Welfare Committee, have no desire to be flooded with rubber stamp emails, sincere expression of views on fluoridation would seem appropriate.

Contact information for the senators and the Health and Welfare committee is easily found at the Vermont Legislature’s website: legislature.vermont.gov.

https://vtdigger.org/2017/03/28/jack-crowther-fluoridation-bill-offers-pause-study/

 

http://www.medicineandillness.com/Flouride%20effects%20on%20Thyroid.htm

 

 

 

Supplement: A letter about   Parry Sound

It is not clear whether ‘ think again here’ refers to a current proposal

Dear Editor,

I read the entire series of reports about the Fluoride debates written by Stephanie Johnson, your award-winning reporter, and as a health buff for more than 40 years I just had to do this: I learned all about the Fluoride hoax. I live in Gravenhurst and we had a similar debate with mixed results. Huntsville and Lake of Bays opted to stop fluoridation. My town as well as Bracebridge opted to keep it in. How sad for the tea and coffee drinkers.

It is hard work trying to accomplish what you did in Parry Sound — congratulations! There were no losers in your final decision to remove Fluoride. What did it was your patience, open-mindedness and sincere concern and respect for all viewpoints, allowing each to have the time and opportunity to fully present his or her case.

I have done the research on Fluoride and can tell that you do not consider it the harmless thing we’ve been told it is. Biochemists who analyzed the product now being used in our water have discovered it contains not only Fluoride but also traces of as many as 50 deadly chemicals. We are not told about this and so continue to believe the original story which fooled even the medical world, so some of them still cannot be blamed. However, they owe it to themselves to dig up the real story online. I had to do it to change my view. We have the means to learn right from wrong — let’s use those brains.

Others often try to make fools of us. The one main concern I had was with a statement made at the end of one of the last of Johnson’s articles that indicated there can be no tests for Fluoride content for 60 months following the conclusion of Fluoride addition to your water. I would want to have that checked once a week by an independent laboratory just to reassure yourselves. Think again here like you did previously.

Mike Napolitano,

Gravenhurst

The  start of  the debates referred to was published  in November 2014