Your silence gives consent.
To me, this is quite an alarming image and I debated about sharing it.
What are your thoughts? Let’s have some feedback on this.
Here’s what William, the artist, said:
“This was the original idea for me; a smiling CDC guy assisting a child with drinking fluoridated water, while the mother stands there, silently.
“I messed with a few angles. Tried to come up with a face for the guy. Looked at references. I forget how Hitler came to be, but at first I was only thinking a subtle Hitler, without the stash.
“My thing is ‘impactful’ or ‘make one ask questions…consider.’”
Comments from others who have seen this image:
“Punches you right in the gut.”
“It’s right on the money.”
“The main point is to get parents to think about what their kids are ingesting.”
“As soon as people see Hitler, they write you off.”
What are your thoughts – about the image, about fluoride being forced on us?
Dr. Kathleen Thiessen Ph.D. senior member of the United States National Research Scientific Committee, which examined fluoride in drinking water in 2006, has published a new paper investigating the economic risks associated with water fluoridation.
The report highlights the hidden costs associated with water fluoridation including the costs of treating dental fluorosis, of accidents and overfeeds, of occupational exposures to fluoride, of promoting community water fluoridation, and of avoiding fluoridated water.
This is a must read for anyone interested in how taxpayers’ money is flushed down the drain with CWF.
A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation – Lee Ko, Kathleen M. Thiessen
Background: Although community water fluoridation (CWF) results in a range of potential contaminant exposures, little attention has been given to many of the possible impacts. A central argument for CWF is its cost-
effectiveness. The U.S. Government states that $1 spent on CWF saves $38 in dental treatment costs.
Objective: To examine the reported cost-effectiveness of CWF.
Methods: Methods and underlying data from the primary U.S. economic evaluation of CWF are analyzed and corrected calculations are described. Other recent economic evaluations are also examined.
Results: Recent economic evaluations of CWF contain defective estimations of both costs and benefits. Incorrect handling of dental treatment costs and flawed estimates of effectiveness lead to overestimated benefits. The real-world costs to water treatment plants and communities are not reflected.
Conclusions: Minimal correction reduced the savings to $3 per person per year (PPPY) for a best-case scenario, but this savings is eliminated by the estimated cost of treating dental fluorosis.
The causes for dental caries need to be dealt with. But that would be doing what’s right, not what’s profitable. Is that being cynical?
Big business and money call the shots. Are you buying into their propaganda? Or just standing by? Or taking action to change the status quo?
Here’s another interesting read.
“Sugar Papers” Reveal Industry Role in 1970s Dental Program by Kristen Bole
A newly discovered cache of industry documents reveals that the sugar industry worked closely with the National Institutes of Health in the 1960s and ‘70s to develop a federal research program focused on approaches other than sugar reduction to prevent tooth decay in American children…
Thus aligned, the sugar industry trade organization and the NIH worked in parallel and ultimately together on developing alternative research approaches, with a substantial portion of the trade organization’s own research priorities – 78 percent – directly incorporated into the 1971 National Caries Program’s first request for research proposals from scientists…
While the authors recognize that the Adams papers provide a narrow window into the activities of one sugar industry trade association, they noted that the sugar industry’s current position remains that public health should focus on fluoride toothpaste, dental sealants and other ways to reduce the harm of sugar, rather than reducing consumption.
FAN News Archive
Fluoride Action Network News Archive brings you updated global news on fluoride-related issues and events. Here’s an example from Wednesday, March 18, 2015.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A retired engineer who wants to take fluoride out of the city’s water is the first official candidate for mayor.
John George this week submitted papers to get on the August primary ballot. Three other people have filed campaign finance forms, indicating they intend to become candidates.
George, 63, says he has talked to Grand Rapids leaders about removing fluoride from the water, but they haven’t done anything about it.
“I think this is a big issue and, quite frankly, I have no political future to worry about,” he said. “I’m worried about the people of Grand Rapids. I think we’re doing them harm.
“If I win I can for sure do something about it, and even if I lose there’s going to be (people becoming aware of fluoride) who start asking questions. I look at this as a no-lose proposition.”
No fluoride news from our community.