A conspiracy in the offing?
Unsigned Herald Editorial dated June 29, 2012
How did Big Fluoride get to them?
After all, tooth decay affects our health. Before fluoridation, people lost teeth all the time. A leading cause for rejection from military service during both world wars was the lack of having six opposing teeth, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which listed fluoridation as one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the past century, right up there with controlling disease and recognizing tobacco as a health hazard.
It seems doctors, with all their fancy degrees, claim that lacking teeth is bad. They say it hinders your ability to eat, impacting nutrition. And cavities can pass infection into the pulp of a tooth, which can then spread disease into your blood.
Which brings us back to Big Pediatrics: Isn’t this cutting into their paychecks, too? We assume treating these illnesses would net them a pretty little profit — parents will spend money on anything.
And what about the voters? When fluoridation came up on the ballot in Everett, it passed by a margin of nearly 2 to 1. Who got to Big Electorate?
Perhaps most troubling of all, our bodies support the use of fluoride. (We don’t call this interest group Big Body. We call it Well-Proportioned Body.) We store fluoride in our bones and teeth. In some cases, too much fluoride stains the teeth. We’re led to believe these stains aren’t as harmful as cavities.
So how did Big Fluoride get to us?
Are we missing some piece of the puzzle?
Or has fluoridation done such a good job addressing tooth decay that we have forgotten what a serious problem it was for literally millennia?
Is it possible that fluoridation should earn our support just because it is a good idea?
Could the answer be that simple?
© 2012 The Daily Herald Co., Everett, WA
Whoever wrote this article either knows nothing about fluoridation or is intentionally and artfully trying to spin the issue away from any kind of intelligent analysis of the question.