Debunking The "So Called" Fluoride "Experts"
Heard Dr. Neil Farrell's (Middlesex London Health Unit) interview with Erika Ritter on 2003/06/10, CBC's Ontario Morning program supporting the use of water fluoridation. It, yet again, boggles my mind to hear this "so called expert" espousing on the efficacy of ingesting fluoride. His reason to maintain toxic substance in London's water is: and I quote "I believe fluoride in Water prevents carries" We are to take it that this quack statement is scientific just because it is made by a "so called expert". Sadly, the media and public at large continue to fall for these shenanigans.
Are the "so called experts" not familiar with the 1999 update of Dr. Lockers report: "Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation"?In the Executive summary of this report it is quoted: "The magnitude of the effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." And "Canadian studies do not provide systematic evidence that water fluoridation is effective in reducing decay in contemporary child populations." (After 40 years of fluoridation experiments we still don't have enough data? Yet this and other reports recommend more studies to determine dangers and advantages for ongoing use! Continued injury to the constituents seems to be of no concern at all - imagine?)
If after 40 years there is no "systematic evidence" than why, on earth, do to we need to fluoridate the water?
Is Dr. Farrell not aware that Fluoride is toxic?
If yes, than why do these "so called experts" want to put a toxic substance in our water? I bet he has not read any laboratory studies or other work on living tissue about the effects of fluoride in water but, non the less, he is still considered an expert! What about Drs Burk and Yamouyiannis work on fluoridation and cancer, the epidemiological studies? I have, and I am not an expert! Also if fluoridation is so safe then why is it banned in so many enlightened European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy, France etc.?
Where is the precautionary principle here?
Do they know that hydrofluorosilicic acid (is a waste byproduct), widely used in water fluoridation, is unlicensed medicinal substances and has never been tested for purity and consistency and has no Drug Identification Number; is manufactured and packaged in unsanitary conditions is adulterated with arsenic and mercury and is non-compliant with the prescribed standard for fluoride drugs?
Keep in mind that putting this toxin in water will administer this poison to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. They don't even know all the other impurities that may be with the hydrofluorosilicic acid besides those mentioned above. See:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Fluoridation-A Violation.pdf
When Fluoride is added in water, the city medicates all residents (even those who voted against or did not vote on water Fluoridation) and visitors without first obtaining their legal informed consent.
In 2003, on average, we are already exposed to enough fluoride today from beverages, foods and toothpaste. Because of this, children today ingest as much fluoride compared to water fluoridated at 1ppm in 1957. In fact fluoridated water today will exceed the recommended dose in infants! Yet Dr. Farrell has the audacity to imply that this due to fluoride in water and removing it will lower fluoride intake to prevent cavities! Conveniently ignoring the fact that excess fluoride is coming not from water but from Pesticides which are a great hidden source of fluorides, tooth paste, Teflon and other chemicals not previously used. See:
http://64.177.90.157/pfpc/html/pesticides.html
Given the above why then is it necessary to add it to the water?
I challenge Dr. Farrell to produce any credible evidence regarding his pro fluoridation position. Unlike him, I have provided data (The Locker Report above etc.) for my position. Sadly he has yet to respond to my earlier questions submitted to the city of London in early 2001 see:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/06/07/fluoridation_of_city_of_london_water_concern.htm
Typical pro fluoridation expert camp tactic is to never to supply data for their position, as there is none, but attack the sources and people providing the evidence....
These "so called experts" hide behind the self serving bureaucracy and exploit public trust. They realize that the general inability for a lay person to hold them accountable should require them being taken to court. This is time consuming, expensive and hence unlikely.Chris Gupta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Often - and it may be regarded as a maxim of dirty politics - when scheming adults have selfish or oppressive ends in mind, they try to sell their program by appealing to the welfare of children. This approach has been even more effective in getting otherwise good citizens to do stupid things than the most rabid anti-communist hysteria."
See: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/watershed1999-5-1dragon.htm for more on how to deal with the So called "water Fluoridation Experts"CG
"Always be prepared to think of experts as stupid. They often are!"
--Jane Jacobs
See also:
Response to 'expert' views on pesticides & BSE
Experts challenge Water Fluoridation
You can't trust the drug 'experts'
Response to 'expert' views on pesticides & BSE
posted by Chris Gupta on Thursday June 12 2003
updated on Monday March 19 2007URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/06/12/debunking_the_so_called_fluoride_experts.htm
Related ArticlesDemocracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride
Here is a commentary on the recent (Jan, 25th, 2011) Public Participation Meeting (PPM) on Fluoride in the City of London, Ontario. The meeting started with a strong pro fluoride stance form the City engineer. His lack of knowledge on chemistry of the toxic wastes used to fluoridate water could embarrass even a high school student never mind his own profession. He blatantly violated his "duty to public welfare" as... [read more]
January 29, 2012 - Chris GuptaWhy Remove Fluoride From Phosphate Rock To Make Fertilizer
Here is a bit of history that illustrates why they feed us hydrofluorosilcic acid in our water. Show this to those who ask why should the authorities slow poison us! "One of the main reasons for processing the raw phosphate rock for agricultural purposes is because of the fluoride content – mainly in the form of fluorosilicates/silicon tetrafluoride. Back in the early part of the 20th century when industrial farming... [read more]
June 09, 2011 - Chris GuptaFluoridation Delays Tooth Eruption - No teeth - No Carries
"When fluoridation is seen to cause delayed tooth eruption, what else is it doing to our bodies?" This is incredible, our health agencies rather poison infants and those allergic/sensitive to fluoride regardless of all the other health effects that are affecting so many, all for an erroneous less than one whole cavity reduction! Listen to Health Canada's Chief Dental Officer (Dr. Peter Cooney) below. The following news release by Canadians... [read more]
April 06, 2011 - Chris Gupta
