In pro-fluoride fashion Steve Austad’s column in last week’s paper is the typical bait and switch I have become accustomed to in the last year and a half.
Insinuating that what is put in our water is natural or if anyone has a problem with fluoride they have to be a conspiracy theorist and using words like “scare mongers,” (when the fluoride pushers are the real fear mongers insisting everyone’s teeth are going to rot out of our heads without ingesting this reactive chemical).
I would like to state that I was not even born in 1964, nor have I ever seen the film that he referred to, nor have I ever been a conspiracy theorist. But I have heard of the movie while being heckled by the city attorney when I was trying to speak to the mayor after a city council meeting.
It was only a short time ago, just like many of you, I believed that fluoride was only beneficial to me. It was only after having a severe reaction to a fluoride-laced medication in the spring of 2015 that I started becoming aware of the dangers of fluoride.
After having this adverse side effect I now know my body reacts when I ingest industrial fluoride. Since then I found that previously I have had reactions to seven different medications that contain fluoride, but no one had noticed. Also several family members and members of our community react to and are affected by this chemical.
How can it be in this day and age that the people who need the information (doctors and health professionals) are not getting the information?
The FDA just released a new warning about more fluoride-laced drugs: anesthetics and sedation drugs affecting young children and pregnant women. Their concern is about the development of children’s brains.
Sounds very familiar to me, but then again my memory might be better than some, since I have to avoid the chemical, unlike other people who ingest it in everything they eat and drink.
It has been my personal experience in the past year and a half that some doctors, pharmacists, or even the FDA are unaware of fluoride being in some of the medication. When looking up your medication search chemical formula of your medication.
In his column, Mr. Austad talks out of both sides of his mouth. He refers to natural fluoride (calcium fluoride) insinuating this is what’s added to our water to make it “optimal for helping prevent tooth decay without worry about side effects.”
But he leaves out the part about what is used in water fluoridation is not natural but actually comes from the smoke stakes of the phosphate fertilizer plants (if he is even aware).
Then he goes on to insist there is no possibility for anyone to have any of the side effects that he listed to be associated with fluoride.
I know before you can say it, a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. Maybe Mr. Austad can explain why a neighboring community had to purchase a $3 million reverse osmosis system to remove the cancer-causing PFOA and PFOS, which are fluoride by-products.
Mr. Austad says the recommended addition of fluoride reach up to 1.5 ppm. As I said some people need to get up with new science.
In April 2015 the federal government lowered the recommended level of fluoride in our drinking water for the first time in more than 50 years. The new guidelines state the level should not exceed 0.7 parts per million.
He goes on to say there are thousands of studies on water fluoridation. It is my understanding there are not many creditable studies.
I wonder if Mr. Austad was aware of the EPA union of scientist which formed so that the scientist could speak out against water fluoridation or maybe the CDC SPIDER Scientist Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research which formed just recently so the scientist could express concerns of the agency being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interest becoming the norm.
The CDC may say water fluoridation is one of the great achievements of the 20th century, but 21st century science is proving water fluoridation to be something much different than an achievement.
I think Dr. John Colquhoun, former chief dental officer of New Zealand got it right: “I now realize what my colleagues and I were doing was what history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact, especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.”
It does not take a scientist to figure out the difference of fluoride and vitamins. The first difference is there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency.
Also, you can choose to avoid enriched milk or wheat if you wish to do so, but it is almost impossible to avoid water (water is in almost everything and we do have to bathe).
Why stop with fluoride though? Why not add some real vitamins to our water? Calcium is good for our bones and teeth, Zinc is good for the immune system, and what about Magnesium?
I’m just joking. I do not want to add anything that is unnecessary to our water system.
Fluoride is the only additive that’s purpose is other than purification and is classified by the FDA as a drug, which is added to our water for the purpose to “possibly” prevent a disease.
Then Mr. Austad brings up lead and asbestos. It only took 40 or 50 years to get the government to admit that these chemicals were harming us and for them to stop exposing us to these toxic substances.
The government has already admitted to fluoride harming us in the manner of dental fluorosis. This is why the CDC lowered the level of fluoride in 2015.
I would think that, at some point, some of these fluoride pushers would start to wonder why people living in poverty still have the worst oral health. If fluoride works so good, those people are eating more processed foods (which contain the most fluoride) and drinking the tap water because they cannot afford bottled water. If fluoride works so well, you should ask yourself, why do people still have bad oral health?
It is my understanding that, if people would actually look at the old science versus new science of the 21st century, they would also become anti-fluoridationists.
Maybe Mr. Austad is unaware of people like myself, some of my family, and others across the country and around the world that react when we are exposed to or ingest industrial fluorides.
Maybe some of the educated people on the subject of fluoride need to learn how to use the internet.