Dr Eugene Tunick responded:
Hi ...,
The response from Dr. Stern suggests that there is a debate between scientific communities of equal status, but nothing could be further from the truth. It's more like 99.5% in favor of fluoridation. Every reputable public health organization from the World Health Organization, the national health organizations of nearly every country in the world, the boards of health of every state in the United States, every scientific organization that deals with public health (and there are a lot), all approve of fluoridation of public water supplies. Millions and millions of people all over the world have been consuming fluoridated water for many years and none of the horrible side-effects that the opponents warn about have happened - nothing!
The arguments against water fluoridation are old, well-known and long since discredited: It is forced medication, fluoride is rat poison (true, but not as it is used for water fluoridation), it is a Capitalist plot by Alcoa Corp (fluoride is a by-product of aluminum manufacturing), it is a Communist plot, it will give you cancer, etc, etc, are all arguments I heard back in 1960 when I was young dentist. One argument was that fluoride softened the brain. We used to warn fluoride opponents not to use that argument in parts of Texas where there is a high level of fluoride in well water. The local residents might soften their brains!
There is now more data showing the safety and benefits of water fluoridation than has been collected for any public health measure, ever!
Best wishes,
Gene
Here's a link to the WHO page about water fluoridation: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/oralhealth/en/index2.html
The scientists who formulate policies promulgated by the WHO are the best of the best from countries all over the world.
Eugene D. Tunick, DDS
Rexford, Montana, USA
While Shmuel commented:
DS answers:
Again, I am as ignorant as the average Joe on the topic, and I am certainly no knocking statements by seasoned dentists who have seen first-hand the effects of fluoridation in their patients. Still, we are not arguing here whether fluoridation is good for teeth or not; the question is whether it is harmful to the human body in general or not. According to fluoridation opponents, there is an agreement that fluoride is toxic, and that the motive for adding fluoride to drinking water was not humanitarian at all, actually quite suspect.
Also, despite Dr. Gene's great admiration for WHO doctors, even though I am not questioning their credentials and qualifications by any means, I cannot help but acknowledge that THEIR SALARIES are coming from suspect sources. So just as a scientist working for a pharmaceutical company is often compelled to cover up his findings if they go against the company's interests, in the same way a doctor, or scientist employed by the UN will not reveal negative information if it goes counter to the UN's agenda. And unfortunately we have learned first hand just how corrupt the UN is - see the article I sent this week about the topic
http://www.newenglishreview.org/files/100/Image/claudia_rossett_3.jpg
So I would take research done by WHO with a huge grain of salt.
Shabbat Shalom
DS
Hi ...,
The response from Dr. Stern suggests that there is a debate between scientific communities of equal status, but nothing could be further from the truth. It's more like 99.5% in favor of fluoridation. Every reputable public health organization from the World Health Organization, the national health organizations of nearly every country in the world, the boards of health of every state in the United States, every scientific organization that deals with public health (and there are a lot), all approve of fluoridation of public water supplies. Millions and millions of people all over the world have been consuming fluoridated water for many years and none of the horrible side-effects that the opponents warn about have happened - nothing!
The arguments against water fluoridation are old, well-known and long since discredited: It is forced medication, fluoride is rat poison (true, but not as it is used for water fluoridation), it is a Capitalist plot by Alcoa Corp (fluoride is a by-product of aluminum manufacturing), it is a Communist plot, it will give you cancer, etc, etc, are all arguments I heard back in 1960 when I was young dentist. One argument was that fluoride softened the brain. We used to warn fluoride opponents not to use that argument in parts of Texas where there is a high level of fluoride in well water. The local residents might soften their brains!
There is now more data showing the safety and benefits of water fluoridation than has been collected for any public health measure, ever!
Best wishes,
Gene
Here's a link to the WHO page about water fluoridation: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/oralhealth/en/index2.html
The scientists who formulate policies promulgated by the WHO are the best of the best from countries all over the world.
Eugene D. Tunick, DDS
Rexford, Montana, USA
While Shmuel commented:
My Uncle Elias, Attorney at Law, Z'L, used his unusually sharp wit on the subject.
FLUORINATION being one of his and our high level pet peeves.
"Show me what kind of fish thrives on artificially fluorinated water. "And while you are at it... "Have you ever seen a fish at the dentist's office"?
There are many subjects that the industrial age promoted to the advantage of the money people.Tobacco, sugar, salt, artificial dulcifies, food preservatives, fluorine, genetically modified foods are entirely artifacts to the gain of big corporations.
SHmuel
DS answers:
Again, I am as ignorant as the average Joe on the topic, and I am certainly no knocking statements by seasoned dentists who have seen first-hand the effects of fluoridation in their patients. Still, we are not arguing here whether fluoridation is good for teeth or not; the question is whether it is harmful to the human body in general or not. According to fluoridation opponents, there is an agreement that fluoride is toxic, and that the motive for adding fluoride to drinking water was not humanitarian at all, actually quite suspect.
Also, despite Dr. Gene's great admiration for WHO doctors, even though I am not questioning their credentials and qualifications by any means, I cannot help but acknowledge that THEIR SALARIES are coming from suspect sources. So just as a scientist working for a pharmaceutical company is often compelled to cover up his findings if they go against the company's interests, in the same way a doctor, or scientist employed by the UN will not reveal negative information if it goes counter to the UN's agenda. And unfortunately we have learned first hand just how corrupt the UN is - see the article I sent this week about the topic
http://www.newenglishreview.org/files/100/Image/claudia_rossett_3.jpg
So I would take research done by WHO with a huge grain of salt.
Shabbat Shalom
DS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment