Originally published April 21 2014
British government suddenly trying to force citizens to drink toxic fluoride - even if you have no teeth!
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) The corporate medical/dental cabal has always insisted that it was important for the general public to use toxic fluoride because, they claim, it is a good protector of teeth. But now, the British government has run out of excuses in pushing fluoride on its population, because it has taken to forcing even those with no teeth of their own to ingest it.
Local officials in England are once again being asked by the British government's health agencies to add the toxic chemical to water supplies, reports The Telegraph. But, as columnist Philip Johnston notes, before they get to pushing the issue too much, "they might remind themselves of the fate of Gordon Simpson":
He was the mayor of Andover in the late Fifties when the Hampshire town tried to do just that. At the subsequent municipal elections, Mr Simpson and the rest of the council were swept from power by anti-fluoridation campaigners, led by the former mayor Olive Harvey. She was so appalled by the addition of fluoride to her water that she sank a borehole in the garden of her home in order to bypass the mains supply. Feelings were such that at the election count in the Guildhall there was a punch-up between candidates. Andover has been fluoride-free ever since.
What's more, Johnston notes, public officials are continually attempting to push the so-called merits of fluoride, but it is still a "politically poisonous" issue -- one of the most in Britain, in fact.
In the last Labour government, he writes, Hampshire was once again a test bed for fluoridation. Then, the now-defunct Strategic Health Authority attempted to introduce a plan in the Southampton region, despite fierce local objections. This time around, local councils are opposing the fluoridation attempt and there are legal challenges to it, apparently.
The brainwashing propaganda continues
Johnston writes that there was also a major battle over fluoridation in the country's northeast in the early 1990s. It, too, was supported by government health officials but also by about 70 percent of the local population; still, the local water company, Northumbria Water, rejected the plan, saying it feared lawsuits over the adding of fluoride to water.
There are only a few communities in Britain that fluoridate water; principally around Birmingham and in eastern England (only about 6 million people in all). Another 500,000 or so live in regions where natural fluoridation occurs.
Recently, a group called Public Health England (PHE) published a report which purported to demonstrate that fluoridation not only reduces tooth decay but also has additional health benefits. In fluoridated regions, for instance, the group said 45 percent fewer children aged one- to four-years-old had even been hospitalized.
"These findings highlight the important contribution that water fluoridation makes," said PHE.
In addition, analysts said they attempted to look for any signs of harm caused by fluoride but said they failed to find any. Opponents of fluoridation point to links between fluoride ingestion and some cancers, increased hip fractures and Down's syndrome, but the analysts for PHE said they found no evidence such health problems were more prevalent in fluoridated regions.
No, the science isn't sketchy
Wrote Johnston:
Calcium fluoride is present naturally in virtually all water supplies, but most levels fall well short of the optimum for dental health, which is one part per million. Proponents maintain that since fluoride appears to reduce the incidence of dental caries and there is no evidence that it is harmful, why should anyone object to its being put in the water? After all, we add chlorine in order to make it drinkable. What's the difference?
Opponents, however, argue that what is added to water is sodium fluoride -- which in large doses is highly poisonous. The risks of doing so, they say, are unknown, the science is questionable, and those studies that have been carried out have been equivocal in their conclusions about safety.
In fact, as noted at Science.NaturalNews.com, a number of studies have linked fluoridation to health problems, especially neurological problems [http://science.naturalnews.com].
And because of these links, most European nations have rejected mass water fluoridation. And while there may be some enhanced dental benefits to using fluoride, based strictly on better dental results in the U.S., Australia and New Zealand, where fluoridation is much more widespread than in Britain and other European nations, there is enough scientific evidence to suggest that it creates health issues. And, some studies, as Johnston points out, have found that incidents of tooth decay in nations like Sweden, Netherlands, Finland and Denmark, which do not fluoridate their water, are actually falling.
Sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.sciencedaily.com
http://science.naturalnews.com
http://www.eurekalert.org
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml