8 Jul 2009

Daily Echo

SOAPBOX: The great debate over fluoride in water rages on
Evidence being misrepresented
I TOTALLY agree with Sue Robson (Soapbox: fluoride debate) about the way the evidence on water fluoridation has been misrepresented.
All health interventions should be based on the best available evidence. In the case of fluoridation, the findings of the most comprehensive Government-commissioned systematic review (the York Review) are constantly misrepresented and we are told no health problems have been identified so therefore, it must be safe and effective. Because this is the message coming down from the PCT, SHA and other medical bodies, influential people such as our two city MPs and certain city councillors believe that water fluoridation is a good thing.
If these people studied the evidence themselves, they would see that the' York Review did not find fluoridation to be safe and effective. The conclusions were that there is a great deal of uncertainty about fluoridation, that it leads to a large increase in fluorosis and that the evidence was of such poor quality that no confident statements can be made regarding safety or efficacy.
ANNA PECKHAM, Southampton.

We are being farced to ingest poison
CONTRARY to John Noon's comment, fluoride is a proven damage to health, not an improvement.
During the public meetings at St Mary's Stadium many specialists showed the evidence of fluoride's damage to the liver and in relation to bone cancer amongst other organic damage.
The ingestion of this noxious substance is clearly scientifically recorded as permanently damaging to the enzyme ptyalin secreted by the salivary glands in the mouth. The brown staining of the teeth is a clear sign of permanent organic damage to the whole digestive system.
Sections 23 and 24 in the Offences Against The Person Act clearly show that it is 'unlawful to administer or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing'. We the public are being forced to ingest a poison when 72 per cent of that public have clearly shown that they don't want it.
The water companies cannot at present control a constant dilution of chlorine in my area of Southampton. We have to run the taps to hopefully reduce the taste and smell of chlorine in our drinking water, and the water company says there is nothing they can do about it.
This means that they cannot possibly control fluoride at a constant one part per million in the water supply So rather than being beneficial for health, fluoride destroys a digestive system that has taken millions of years to evolve, to the detriment of the whole species.
The members of the SHA should not be applauded for their actions, as Mr Noon suggests. They should be brought before the law for their crime against the person, and before their own professional bodies for their ignorance of, and their malpractice in, the field of health care.
M SIMPSON, Southampton.

No comments: