From the post below. Dr Tom says "Everyone is entitled to fight against things that are done for their own well-being. It is odd to say this is forced on them when a simple water filter would remove the fluoride from your water. Let's face it, everyone that has posted against fluoride is drinking bottled water or reverse osmosis water from their home. You can avoid the fluoride if you so choose. Stop making decisions for the people that need it the most.
Whenever there is a debate, I think it is wise to look at 'what's in it for each side'. On one hand you have a dentist that could profit from an increase in tooth decay, begging for the addition of fluoride to the water. On the other side is a guy who currently speaks to the evils of fluoride, claims he does not profit from his book on the topic and yet he makes a very good living lecturing on this topic. Not very credible in my opinion."
First of all how do you know how much Dr. Connett makes on his lecture circuit? And why deny a man financial rewards for supremely excellent service to society? Secondly many doctors and dentists write books about what they know. And last I checked they were not unrewarded financially for it.
If dentists actually cared about poor people they who have limited or no access to quality dentistry, they would do far more free dentistry for them than they do now - which is practically none. They would focus especially in cosmetic dentistry, much of which is required by 41% of children who get dental fluorosis from....wait for it...FLUORIDE. But profit and money get in the way as dental practices enjoy a comfortable business model supported by insurance companies and a paradigm that does not service those who can not pay market rates for dental work.
FURTHERMORE, if poor people, who dentists deem to be sad and alone in a terrifying world of decay and cruelty, then why do dentists not offer the poor heavy duty education, nutritional counseling and free Xylitol snd REAL tooth decay programs as they do in countries like Sweeden where socialized medicine levels the greed factor and pushes forward real solutions to real problems without such encumbrances. Why do they support the add toxic chemicals to water that nobody should be drinking unfiltered from the tap with or without fluroide in the first place. The carcinogenic attributes of water without fluroide are well documented. Everyone should be filtering their water anyway. This just makes the problem worse and smacks of a larger conspiracy of control over society in general.
The problem with many dentists and medically trained professnal is they have been indoctrinated into a tunnel vision mentality. They are obsessed with teeth and have no training in general physiology as do general practitioner medical doctors. It astounds me that their science is accepted when they do not have and MD degree. The level of voluntary ignorance in the dental community is all too convenient to maintain credibility. I believe it all goes back to a basic survival instinct. Anything that threatens the survival of an individual polarizes any opinion he or she might form in favor of the best outcome for the individual. In this case anything that threatens the status quo paradigm is terrifying especially when so much ego is attached to credibility for having supported fluoridation for so long. How do you go back? You can't. So you side with the devil, metaphorically speaking. You side with industry and a government that supports bad science, and those would subdue the public good. We know this because they ignore new science but mire importantly they need to protect their reputations at all cost. They know the science they have been reporting to be safe and effective so long is bad science and they spend millions to protect this lie. To retract this position would bring on an avalanche of law suits that could ostensibly go on for decades if not longer.
If, as non medical professional, I know these things in toxic detail. Why is it these dentists do not? Consider what they, the CDC, FDA and ADA have to lose? This is the smoking gun.
William Zimmermann
No comments:
Post a Comment