DEAL RESPONDS TO GOOFY EDITORIAL FROM HERALD ON FLUORIDATION
July 1, 2012
From James Robert Deal:
I am writing regarding “A Conspiracy in the Offing” an unsigned editorial published June 29.
This article does not meet Herald or Washington Post standards of journalism. (The Herald is owned by the Washington Post.)
I say this because whoever wrote the article has obviously not read the basic literature on the issue.
Adding lead, arsenic, hydrogen fluoride, and many other chemicals to our water is not something to trifle about. Real people are being harmed.
The article is artfully crafted, which makes me wonder if it was ghost written by some fluoridationist lobby group.
However, it is overwhelmingly clear that adding this so-called fluoride to our water is not safe, not effective, and not legal. I summed it up for the City Council in this letter:
Until publishing this editorial, the Herald has done a fair job of covering this story, allowing both sides to state their cases. On 6-25 the Herald published this http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120625/NEWS01/706259941.
On 6-26 I posted this response:
The Herald refused to publish my response because I am running for office, an unfortunate policy, given that I was only responding to incorrect information stated about me. the Herald is not silenced but I am.
Then on 6-29 the Herald published this unsigned editorial:
The title of the article does not fit with the body. What is the conspiracy the author is referring to? Is it the fertilizer company conspiracy to re-label their toxic waste so they can get offload it at a profit? See https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sham.
The author seems to be implying that fluoridation itself is not an unhealthy conspiracy by greed fixated mega chemical corporations but is a good thing and that is why it is so hard to dislodge.
The problem with this theory is that the facts say otherwise. So-called fluoridation can’t be effective: Tooth decay has dropped just as much in non-fluoridated Europe. There are other causes to declines in tooth decay such as generally improved diets. And this so-called fluoride does immediate harm to fetuses and infants and long-term harm to us all.
Moreover, the chemical used is illegal because it does not meet NSF 60 standards.
The writer also seems to be suggesting that because the CDC, EPA, the American Dental Association, and numerous medical and dental associations support so-called fluoridation, that it must be safe, effective, and legal. However, endorsements prove nothing. In this case endorsements merely prove how skillful the fluoridationists are at pressuring and manipulating groups via financing and other tactics.
In fact the EPA scientists do not support fluoridation. It is only EPA administrators who support it. And while CDC and HHS administrators support fluoridation (CDC is under HHS), CDC scientists post journal articles on the CDC web site which admit that the effect of fluoride is topical and not systemic and that 41% of our children are having their teeth defaced by fluorosis, and around 12% of our children are suffering from mild, medium, or severe fluorosis, all of which are unsightly.
This is all explained with links to prove my points in my latest letter to the City Council.
To the author of this off-base article, I would advise he or she do some reading before passing on more erroneous information.
So-called fluoridation is a sham and a scam. Our City Council has believed a lie. We are being defrauded to the tune of $300,000 per year.
Safe water groups are planning to attend the monthly Snohomish Health Department meeting on Tuesday July 10 at 3 pm.
We will also be visiting the Everett City Council on Wednesday of July 11 at 6:30.