|
|
|
CENSORSHIP BENEFITS ALTERNATIVES
OVERDOSE DISEASES PUBLIC COST |
CENSORSHIP Why would so many health organizations be promoting fluoridation if it were not "safe and effective?" Follow
the Money "Dr. Phyllis Mullenix says she lost her job at Harvard's Forsyth (Dental) Research Institute in 1994 after she insisted on publishing research results showing that fluoride adversely affected brain function in test animals. Mullenix had spent 12 years at Forsyth's toxicology department, eleven of them as its chairman." (See 0-7: "Vigorously brushing aside reports of fluoride's dangers," The Boston Sunday Globe, Apr. 4, 1999). "There is clear evidence that promoters have stacked the deck, suppressed evidence, and victimized or smeared those who speak out against the practice" (of fluoridation). (David R. Hill, P.Eng., Professor Emeritus, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4, Aug. 1997.) Such tactics would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground. "No school, college or independent medical research institution dares to be critical of fluoridation because they receive Public Health research grants. Likewise, no big food, beverage or drug company will dare speak critically of fluoride because they are under the supervision of Food and Drug Administration, a branch of US PHS." (Fluoridation and Censorship by H. Petraborg, MD, 9/30/64.) The USPHS spends millions promoting fluoridation with public funds and have influenced health trade organizations to "come on board" without performing any research of their own. They simply parrot each other's endorsement. Admission that they are mistaken would result in loss of face and legal liability, much like the tobacco industry. By
presenting the results of the original fluoridation experiments incorrectly,
the public and many health organizations were led to believe there was
a 65% reduction in tooth decay with fluoridation. The Health Department's
own statistics, when read correctly, prove that there is only a delay
in decay, and that dental bills are actually higher, due to dental fluorosis. The Washington Bureau editor of AGD Impact, the monthly publication of the Academy of General Dentistry, wrote in 1999 that "supporters of fluoridation have had an unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a negative light," and that organized dentistry "has lost its objectivity — the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion." According to Section 20 of the American Dental Association Code of Ethics, "Dentists' non-participation (in fluoridation promotion) is overt neglect of professional responsibility." In recent years, several dentists who have testified on the anti-fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state dental officers. |
|
|
| NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner. This
site and accompanying book is published by First
Edition This
information provided on this site was compiled by This
site and accompanying book was edited by Site Builder: Michelle@Jabbocat Consulting |
|