Ken: “Fluoride is safe and effective, says AFAM” – AFAM’s response

10 Comments

The following is a response to Ken’s comment, dated July 5, 2014, in which he refers to AFAM’s stance on water fluoridation vs other modes of fluoride delivery. As usual, Ken has pissed on a bush when he was apparently aiming for a tree, but we will at least try to set things straight…

Ken writes:

“It appears from afamildura’s response in the pingback above that he has come on board. Fluoride is safe and effective – his only problem is the mode of delivery. He objects to fluoridation of drinking water but is happy to accept fluoridation of salt and milk and fluoride dental treatments! Then why go to so much trouble to attempt to discredit fluoride in general?”

AFAM’s response:

1. Opposed to water fluoridation? Absolutely, Ken. Glad you figured this out at least. Supporting a mass treatment via public water supplies – where neither the dose nor the potential subtle health effects can adequately be controlled or monitored – is illogical, especially when one considers there are many other more targeted options available for preventing tooth decay that would be far less controversial.

2. Fluoride safe and effective? Ken, if you wish to stick to this propaganda line, that’s your business, but attributing the sentiment to us is beyond laughable. Time you visited our Basics page to get a grasp on the fact that we argue the exact opposite of this propaganda line.

3. Why don’t we argue against fluoridated dental products/treatments? Because they are not used to mass treat the population via drinking water supplies, hence they can be delivered to the right individuals at the right time for the right treatment – with free and full informed consent/individual choice. Not to mention, they are also applied topically, which is the way fluoride treatment, if to be delivered at all, should be delivered, not systemically.

4. Fluoridation of salt and milk and other systemic modes of delivery? Again, this is illogical and we’ve never actively supported such silly measures, because as we all now know, fluoride doesn’t need to be swallowed to be effective. However, if people are deluded enough to insist on deliberately consuming fluoridated products, then that is their choice. Just like if someone wants to jump off a cliff, that’s their choice and it’s not our job to stop them. All we can do is warn them of the potential consequences if they do. The difference between consuming fluoridated products of this nature and being exposed to fluoride treatment via drinking water, is that people can choose to take these products in controlled amounts/doses with the conscious choice to do so, whilst fluoridated drinking water increases our total fluoride exposure whether we like it or not. As clarified by the National Research Council:

“The major dietary source of fluoride for most people… is fluoridated municipal (community) drinking water, including water consumed directly, food and beverages prepared at home or in restaurants from municipal drinking water, and commercial beverages and processed foods originating from fluoridated municipalities.”

In other words, fluoridating drinking water contaminates many other products and therefore is an inherently ridiculous form of treatment delivery for the reasons stipulated above. But knowing you, Ken, you have difficulty understanding the basic concepts, so again, the main issues in such a context are margin of safety and individual informed consent. Treatment effectiveness (or lack thereof) as a sub-issue is important, but the former two issues take precedent – especially in light of evolving understandings of the molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Thus, we agree with Thiessen:

“Water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups.”

In summary:

Public water fluoridation is an obsolete concept; it is unethical, ineffective, and does not and cannot allow for the establishment of an adequate margin of safety. If people are idiotic and brainwashed enough to take fluoride supplements from the pharmacy or wherever and deliberately ingest them, then so be it. We have no issue with that, nor whether people want to apply fluoridated dental products topically. But when governments and councils force us all to be exposed to fluoride via drinking water, thus contaminating the food chain, without our consent and without adequate biomonitoring protocols in place, then they will meet resistance from us. Do you get it, Ken, finally?!?!!

Advertisements

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

10 thoughts on “Ken: “Fluoride is safe and effective, says AFAM” – AFAM’s response

  1. The politically powerful groups pushing this dangerously corrosive hazardous waste and co-contaminants down our throats should all be on criminal charges (and corruption charges) for damaging our health and safety by forcing these pollutants into our water supplies and hence food chain. This is an atrocity that has gone on for six decades in Australia and 7 decades in the USA. Australia like USA is chronically diseased and in dental crisis – the Commonwealth Ombudsmen and many others including the mainstream media should have strenuously looked into this and joined the call for a total and irrevocable ban on water fluoridation schemes.

    • When criminals run wild, this is what we end up with.

    • It’s unlikely, that we will get a properly balanced insight, via the mainstream media, as this wouldn’t be in their owners best interests! We may get some ‘controlled opposition’ from them, but it’s unlikely that say, for example…the people would get to see “Christopher Bryson’s – The Fluoride Deception” on mainstream, unless they would be able to disprove it (fraudulently of course) in some way?

      FYI, the owners of mainstream, don’t really have our best interests at heart, its more for their own.

  2. AFAM, Congratulations — ! NOTABLY, you did not ignore ANY of the scientific literature by way of the many posts you have done on this blog ie. https://afamildura.wordpress.com/research-databases/ and, https://afamildura.wordpress.com/?s=science ; but you have dealt with the ETHICS properly eg. https://afamildura.wordpress.com/?s=ethics .

    BUT in response, not only did Ken refuse to acknowledge your valid, ethical and logical points in this article, but, he basically ‘parrotted’ his mantra – ‘hate Connett’ and anyone who disagrees with his POV. I think Connett is quite capable of dealing with the Science – and Ken refuses to deal with many of Connetts ethical issues. Ken hates the ethical arguments, as he has none himself, especially he disregards completely how others view the issue of being forced to ingest, via the water supply, industrial waste products laced with cumulative heavy metals. Ken does not speak on behalf of all those ingesting these chemicals https://afamildura.wordpress.com/fluoridation-chemicals/ . He speaks on behalf of those pushing industrial waste into our drinking water — for no matter how much Science there is to back his claims that fluoride is ‘safe and effective’, there is no data to support that claim anywhere in the world – a fact Ken conveniently overlooks.

    So, he scurries back to his own blog, not addressing a single ethical issue you have pointed out. Its GREAT we have ‘cynical diversion’ to ethical issues – as that is the whole point – the promotors have no ethics.

  3. I am making my comments and responses on my own blog because this helps prevent cynical diversion away from the whole point of the article – the misinterpretation and distortion of the scientific literature when cited by people like Connett and other anti-fluoride propagandists. Notably, you also attempt to ignore that issue here.

    • LOL. Whatever blows your hair back mate. Have fun with your little friends on your little blog. Knock yourselves out. 😉

    • It is illegal for a doctor or a dentist to force anyone to take a drug or a chemical.
      It should be illegal for the government as well. Fluoride should not be added to drinking water, which forces everyone to consume it against their will.

      The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
      SIMPLE SOLUTION:
      1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
      2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
      3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.
      PROBLEM SOLVED.

    • What’s the going rate for being a fluoride shill Ken?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s