-Caveat Lector-
To add to the current fluoride safety debate, perhaps the article, attached
below, taken from the National Pure Water Association's website
(www.npwa.co.uk) may be of interest.
Whether fluoride is or can be proven conclusively to be safe or not is only
*one* aspect of the debate.
The other side is whether mass medication is ethical.
Put quite simply, the answer has to be an unequivocal "NO".
Water is supplied to fulfil the requirements of water, plain and simple.
Medication is the domain of physicians, and the consent to taking such
chemicals lies with the individual.
Everyone consumes tap water, whether as a drink or in cooking.
If water was fluoridated, my liberty to chose medication has been stolen
from me.
Whether fluoride is safe or not is, and has to be irrelevant - for the basic
question is "Can we allow the public to be mass-medicated against their free
will?". I cannot see anything other than a negative answer.
Thank you. Regards,
Nadia Hamer
England
>From the National Pure Water Association:
> Medication without consent: The legal implications.
>Is it ethical . . .?
>The British Dental Association, British Medical Association, Area Health
Authorities and others have >continued for years to lobby parliament to
force a change in the law to compel water authorities to >fluoridate
drinking water throughout Britain if the Health Authorities request it. But
from the evidence >presented here it is clear that experts disagree as to
the benefits and dangers associated with fluoridation. >The first obvious
question to be answered, therefore, is: should the whole population be put
at risk for the >possible benefit of a minority?
>We are already overfluoridated
>When drinking water was first fluoridated in the 1940s, that was the only
source of fluoride in the food >supply. Today all that has changed: it is
difficult to find a toothpaste which does not contain fluoride; >fluoride
may also be found in canned drinks, fruit juices, tea, meat, vegetables --
in fact all foods which >have been grown or manufactured using fluoridated
water. So is it really necessary to add more to tap >water? And as it seems
we are not sure what is a safe limit for fluoride, is it even safe to add
more to tap >water? The evidence suggests strongly that it is not.
Fluoridation of tap water forces us all to take the risk >of this dubious
and, for most, unnecessary medication whether we want to or not as domestic
water filters >do not filter fluoride out and bottled water is both suspect
and expensive.
> Even if there were conclusive evidence that fluoridation is of benefit
to one section of the population, it >cannot be right to prescribe it for
all if it has been shown to cause harm to others. And whether it is
>dangerous or not, and whether it is good for children's teeth or not are
really irrelevant. There is no ethical >reason why everyone, like it or not,
should be subjected to any form of mass medication.
>. . . is it legal?
>It may not even be legal : in English law, medical treatment without
consent is only permitted by court order >for convicted felons, for the
mentally ill, or for minors with the consent of their guardians. Surely it
cannot >be ethical for any health professional to prescribe medication for
persons he has not met, whose past >medical histories are not known, whose
current medical needs are not known, where the dose that each >individual
will take in is not known, when it is not known whether the medication will
react with other >medications being taken, or even whether those people need
the medication at all. Fluoridation is an affront >to human dignity which is
explicitly recognised as a major objective in the United Nations Declaration
of >Human Rights. The foundation of the legal rights and liberties of the
individual is the principle of that >individual's responsibility for his
conduct and his own interests, chief among which is his health.
> Fluoridation encroaches on a person's sovereignty over his body and the
selfsame principle that seeks to >justify fluoridation would also justify
adding tranquillisers, vitamins, antibiotics, contraceptives, laxatives or
>anything else to the water supply: it could justify putting nicotine in the
water supply to help smokers give >up, for example. This is the principle of
totalitarianism. Fluoridation is not only against the spirit of the laws >of
England, it is contrary to the letter of the law.
> Even if fluoridation eventually proves to be safe, which seems highly
unlikely, the psychological damage >that will be done to those who fear the
side effects of fluoride and cannot avoid it could cause much more >ill
health than toothache ever will. Adding insult to injury of those who do not
want fluoride will be the >knowledge that they will have to pay for this
intrusion on their rights while being harmed by it.
>Bad science
>The protection of teeth by fluoridation is merely attempting to mitigate
the symptoms of disease without first >trying to cure the disease. This is
not good medicine. If dentists are really concerned about dental caries,
>why are they not openly addressing the cause: children's eating of sweets,
fizzy drinks and other refined >carbohydrates (starches and sugars)?
>Reference
>McCormick Dr P, (Barrister at Law). The Legal, Ethical and Political
Implications of Fluoridation . >National Pure Water Association, 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
