Of the speakers mentioned in the Hamilton Spectator article we reported on – – Dr. Chris Mackie (Associate medical officer of health), Dr. Arlene King (Ontario Chief medical officer of health), and Dr. Peter Cooney (Health Canada chief dental officer), again, it cannot be stressed enough the names of the speakers who were absent from the Spec article – – chiefly, Dr. Paul Connett.
Does Alan Watt have a point in his suggestion that they parade the names and titles out to you in an effort to comfort the public, and have us go back to sleep?
The so called experts are the only ones you need to hear about people, come on! The others? They are just nutjob conspiracy theorists – – no need to hear their side of the argument. If we linked their names to their websites, you would just get confused and we don’t want you to pay attention and actually think. So, go back to sleep public while we mess with your mind, and give you only the names of the pros who know how to look out for you.
You have been conditioned to accept these leaders as right, and everyone else is an anarchist.
Come on, the expert told you the fluoride is at “safe levels” so what are you worried about. We’d tell you if it was at unsafe levels, so go back to your work, and leave the big boy studies and regulations to us.
Okay, let’s have a look at the arguments, in brief.
Dr. Chris Mackie didn’t seem to have too much evidence, but mentioned over and over again that there has been “research on safety”. He even put this paper out to suggest fluoride is great for teeth and they should have annual reporting at the Municipal level (what a comfort!), and I suppose he is saying by ingesting it into the body, it will somehow be beneficial for teeth. Where’s the evidence to support this? We know where there is plenty of evidence that is ongoing to refute it.
Dr. Arlene King stated that there were 90 national and international studies to support that drinking water is safe.
So, I suppose the facts presented in this video are wrong?:
The push to phase out bottled water that Hamilton was promoting two years ago is part of a broader push to leave us with no choice (forget the “Clear Choice”).
Dr. Peter Cooney informed that Health Canada did a peer reviewed study in 2006 that suggested that there was no conclusive evidence to suggest health issues as a result of fluoride, and went on to state the healthy range that is in the water, specifically stating that there is 1.5 mg per litre of water in Canada.
Logically, would a safe level for a baby be the same safe level for an adult?
By Dr. Cooney’s argument of safe levels, is he suggesting that too much, beyond the safe level would be unsafe? What about the accumulation effect in the body? Why would fluoride in the blood stream be beneficial for teeth? And, have they really done adequate study to ensure what happens to the human body?
The anti-fluoride side would seem to have arguments that paint a different picture
Shane Coleman of the Hamilton Farmers Market pointed out that there seems to be a lack of “Safety Data Sheets”, but what is listed as “DSL” is known to be toxic.
Cindy Mayor of fluoridefreehamilton.ca emphasized the concern of Peel Region and their investigation, and questioned why Health Canada was present at the meeting, as they have no jurisdiction to determine if fluoride is present in municipal water supplies. Is there a national mandate and goal to promote fluoride use?
And then, Dr. Paul Connett came to the podium to state a little bit of what he has researched over the years. Connett pointed out that there has been a lack of investigation in Canada to prove or disprove the lowering of IQ, behavioural issues, bone fracture, hyper thyroidism, or Alzheimers disease to the fluoride.
Where there is plenty of evidence to support these findings, Connett pointed out Canada has not done anything to ensure they are not having ill health effect on Canadians.
Again, interesting to ask why Health Canada came in to the Hamilton debate on fluoride.
One thing I forgot to mention earlier is that I sent a link to my original article to Emma Reilly (firstname.lastname@example.org) on April 17th, after reading her reporting.
It should be noted that the Hamilton Spectator is owned by the same corporation that owns the Toronto Star, and we can certainly say they are aware of the evidence that goes beyond what the experts in Health Canada and the Provinces have to say.
Perhaps it is time that they inform the public, as we do in alternative media, that there are two sides to a debate. Showing one only may be construed as a means to influence the public to view one side as more credible.
And that, in the opinion of Alan Watt, would be leading the people to the desired goal. And, that would not be too nice, now would it?