The Fluoride Debate

HOME

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY/
ENVIRONMENT

CENSORSHIP

THE FLUORIDE
DEBATE

BENEFITS
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8

ALTERNATIVES
Question 9
Question 10
Question 11
Question 12


SAFETY
Question 13
Question 14

OVERDOSE
Question 15
Question 16
Question 17

DISEASES
Question 18
Question 19
Question 20
Question 21
Question 22
Question 23
Question 24
Question 25
Question 26
Question 27
Question 28
Question 29
Question 30
Question 31
Question 32
Question 33

PUBLIC
POLICY

Question 34
Question 35
Question 36
Question 37
Question 38
Question 39
Question 40

COST
EFFECTIVENESS
Question 41
Question 42
Question 43

CONCLUSION

PUBLIC POLICY

Question 34.
Is fluoridation a valuable public health measure?

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Short Answer
Yes. Fluoridation is a public health program that benefits people of all ages, is safe and is cost effective because it saves money.

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Long Answer
A former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Luther Terry, called fluoridation as vital a public health measure as immunization again disease, pasteurization of milk and purification of water.205 Another former U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, has stated, "Fluoridation is the single most important commitment that a community can make to the oral health of its citizens." In 1998, the U.S. Public Health Service revised national health objectives to be achieved by the year 2010. Included under oral health was an objective to significantly expand the fluoridation of public water supplies.8 Water fluoridation has been lauded as one the most economical preventive values in the nation,9 and today still has the greatest dental public health impact.36

Repeat of Question 34.
Is fluoridation a valuable public health measure?

Opposition's Response

No. It is compulsory mass medication. "Fluoride is a pharmacologically active substance unrelated to water purification. There is no possibility of obtaining individual informed consent for medication with this experimental drug when it is placed in a public water system. For these reasons, fluoridation violates the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics and human rights.

"It is not possible to claim that addition of pharmacologically active fluorine compounds to drinking water is not medication and at the same time claim that it reduces tooth decay. No one disputes the fact that consumption of fluorine compounds in water at the approximate rate of 1.0 ppm (the level advocated by fluoridation promoters) produces changes in the structure of tooth enamel and bone. This is a physiological effect caused by the fluorides.

"Although virtually every American is exposed to daily treatment with this medication (in fluoridated areas), the official FDA classification for fluoride is AN UNAPPROVED NEW DRUG. — This means that fluoridation of public water supplies is 'medical experimentation.'

"Some medical and dental authorities hold the opinion that these physiological changes are desirable. Others view these physiological changes as undesirable. — Clearly, individuals must retain the right to decide whether or not to undergo fluoride treatment.

"Because daily water consumption varies widely from individual to individual, depending on such factors as age, occupation and diet, there is no control of individual fluoride dosage. Furthermore, fluoride is administered without the knowledge or consent of many who depend on public water supplies. Administration of this medication via public water supplies is an obvious violation of the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics." (Fluoridation — Why The Controversy?, by Janet Nagel, Ed.D., from National Health Federation.)

The U.S. Public Health Service has done this before — at least six times. (See 34-1: U.S. Public Health Service Experiments on Non-Consenting Humans, by Walter Miller).

"A majority vote which violates ethical or moral principles, or deprives individuals of rights they should be free to enjoy, is not democracy but tyranny. It is a subversion of democracy that will bring democracy to an end in the degree that it is allowed to operate." (the late F. B. Exner, MD FACR, Seattle.)

"Given a recommendation for medication, individuals in a free society have a right to choose whether or not to accept treatment, a right to expect properly controlled dosage and medical supervision, and a right to be told the truth. Water fluoridation abrogates these rights." (David R. Hill, P.Eng., Professor Emeritus, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4, Aug. 1997, hill@cpsc.ucalgary.ca.)

"Fluoridation is compulsory medication without parallel in the history of medicine. As one dentist wrote me recently — 'If I prescribe this drug for a patient and he goes to a pharmacist and has my prescription filled with NaF, he thinks he is taking medicine — and so do I. If the government puts an inferior quality of the same drug not fit for human consumption in the water, suddenly it is not medication.' To continue to argue that fluoridation is not mass medication is rather silly in view of the facts." (See 34-2: Open Letter to a Proponent of Fluoridation).

"It is morally bad to impose on another person something he does not desire when that person harms no one else by wishing to refrain. — It is morally evil to do in our City that for which Nazi physicians were hanged-medicating without the patient's consent." (See 34-3: The Moral Aspect, the 13 reasons why Reverend Jonas E. C. Shepherd, Knollwood Park Presbyterian Church, considers fluoridation ethically wrong).

Many people drink alcohol, eat meat, use sugar in coffee, drink diet sodas, eat spicy foods, smoke tobacco or cigars, etc., but our individual freedom of choice precludes the majority dictating that those in the minority must do the same.

Studies have proven that children who are given whole grains in place of white flour have less than half the tooth decay as children who drink fluoridated water and are eating white flour products, but the government would never make a law prohibiting white flour-and it shouldn't. (See Alternatives section for details).

"The real issue is the right of the individual to determine what shall be done to and with his body, dead or alive, as long as in the exercise of that right he does not impinge upon the equal rights of his fellows. "(Dr. L. A. Alesen (M.D.) Past President of California Medical Association and member House of Delegates, American Medical Association.)

"It is not the province of the State to do something for us that is 'good for us.' The State has a right only to introduce foreign bodies into water supply or to take such other measures as is for the prevention or spread of disease and the protection of the community as a whole." (Dr. C. L. Farrell, M.D., Chairman American Medical Association, Public Health Committee, Oct. 16, 1954.)

"Fluoridation is a test to see just how well our constitution guarantees the right of the individual to physical integrity or the right to care for his own body and health without the State ordering him to do it in a certain way." (Dr. David W. Bronson, New York, NY.)

"For some persons, sulfur or iron or any other of the substances occurring naturally in some waters may be desirable and would, in their opinion, be beneficial if added to those waters where they were not found naturally ... The principle, therefore of permitting by Statute the treatment of communal water supplies by adding substances other than those required for purposes of purification could be unending. If fluorides are introduced, why not some other substance? If the principle is admitted we might just as well recognize that we have opened a door which the Province might never be able to close." (Dr. M. B. Dymond, Minister of Health, Province of Ontario.)

"Only the upper 10% who are financially in a position to buy unfluoridated water or drill their own wells will be able to save themselves from being poisoned if the water is fluoridated." (Dr. H. A. Salvesen (M.D.) Professor University of Oslo, Norway, Chief of State Hospital Medical Department, physician to the late King.)

"I do not wish the government to tell me what I should eat or drink. If the person next door wishes her children to have fluorine, let her put the fluorine in their water, but don't make me drink it because she wishes her children to have it." (Dr. Edwin G. Langrock (M.D.) Consulting Obstetrician, Beth Israel Hospital, New York City.)

Download
The Fluoride
Debate

as a .pdf

Jump to the Opposition's
Response

for this
question.

 

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
Health Way House | 403 Marcos St | San Marcos, CA 92069

First Edition
February 2001

This information provided on this site was compiled by
Anita Shattuck | Tel: 760-752-1621 | bakeranita@cox.net

This site and accompanying book was edited by
Edward Bennett

Site Builder: Michelle@Jabbocat Consulting