studies have linked fluoridation of the water supply to lowered
IQs, increased risk of cancer, and bone disease, amongst other conditions.
So why do we still fluoridate? As researchers like Anthony Gucciardi
warn, fluoridation may in fact only be the thin edge of the wedge
when it comes to forced medication of the population. This is the
GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV.
a positive note, community
around the globe is bringing this issue to a head by forcing referenda
or plebiscites on the practice of water fluoridation. And, little
by little, concerned citizen activists are working to get the fluoride
removed from the water supply in an increasing number of towns
it is heartening to see more and more activists taking up the fight
to get this toxic chemical removed from their local water supply,
this work is of necessity piecemeal and subject to setbacks. Even
as some communities work to remove the fluoride, others, like Portland,
Oregon – the largest urban centre in the US currently without a
fluoridation program – are preparing
to vote on whether to add it to their supply.
may be tempting to say that this democratic process is fair but
frustrating. After all, we often hear, the will of the people must
be respected. This viewpoint, however, is not only wrong, it is
dangerously wrong. The real issue behind the practice of water fluoridation
is not merely that the hydrofluorosilicic
acid that is misleadingly called “sodium fluoride” is a toxic
brew of industrial waste products that is causing untold medical
harm. It is that this creates the precedent for the forced drugging
of our society.
long as the fluoride myth is not confronted head on for what it
actually is, the Center for Disease Control and like-minded institutions
will continue to promote it as one of the 10
Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century, as
they do. This, in effect, serves to paper over the fact that what
is being advocated is the forced medication of an entire population,
without regard to the unwitting patient’s age, size, sex, race,
background or medical history, and without giving that patient a
method for opting out of the program. Every day millions of people
in different parts of the globe drink, shower in, bathe in, and
otherwise absorb and ingest this un-prescribed medicine, almost
without exception without the informed consent of those individuals.
exactly as Gucciardi notes, the idea of using the fluoridation program
as an explicit justification for adding further medications to the
drinking water is already being introduced to the public. [See this
does not take a professional bioethicist to understand how such
an idea, even if implemented by the best-intentioned doctors for
the best-intentioned reasons adhering to the best practices conceivable
via modern medicine could still be a fundamental violation of human
rights and, in fact, a crime against humanity no less egregioius
than the human
experimentation in the Nazi death camps that the civilized world
has long since shunned.
in short, is a medically and scientifically bankrupt practice that
has long since been discredited as a means of preventing tooth decay.
Its political utility for those who wish to use this precedent of
the forced drugging of an entire population, however, means it is
not a practice that will be abandoned easily by the CDC, EPA, FDA
and the entire pharmaceutical-industrial complex that is increasingly
eager to start adding other drugs to the water supply.
is incumbent on activists everywhere, then, to lend their efforts
to eradicating the water fluoridation program in their own area
and assisting others in ridding it from theirs. Only then can this
practice be exposed for the crime against humanity that it is, and
all such ideas of drugging the water supply can be properly consigned
to the dustbin of history.