Som mange ved, så har dette været et omstridt emne i mange år.
Mange professionelle (og andre) har påstået at grunden til at børn har fået
fluor er solidt grundet i videnskabelige undersøgelser.
Nu kan man næsten ikke få tandpasta uden fluor, og småbørnsforældre bliver
anbefalet at give deres børn fluortabletter, skylle med fluor m.m.
Skulle man tidligere have stillet spørgsmål ved denne fluorisering i (nogle
af) nærværende NGs, har man efterfølgende blevet beskyldt for mange grimme
ting, inkl det at være en komplet uansvarlig forælder.
Fluorisering af drikkevand, tandpasta, fluorskylning m.m. er omkring af
samme dato som de offentlige vaccinations programmer. (dog er det angiveligt
i mange europæiske lande forbudt at komme fluor i drikkevand)
Som enhver kan se, så bliver man skudt i skoene mange ting hvis man ikke
vaccinerer sine børn, og som også kan ses, så viser det sig nu at det samme
gør sig gældende søger man blot konkret information omkring vacciner og
deres virkning og risici på kort og på lang sigt.
Hvornår kommer erkendelsen om vaccinationens alvorlige og reelle bagside?
På
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5102a1.htm bliver reel
information om vaccination blot omtalt som uautoriseret information.
Selvfølgelig er det pt uautoriseret ifølge CDC, men det gør den ikke mindre
faktuel og konkret.
Så kommer dette om fluor på de offentlige bord - noget man hele tiden har
vidst.
FLUORISERING ER IMOD ALLE PRINCIPPER I MODERNE FARMAKOLOGI OG HAR MANGE
ALVORLIGE FØLGESYGDOMME.
Jeg vil anbefale enhver ANSVARLIG forælder til sætte sig ind i problemet og
læse på linksene.
------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57098
600 pros urge Congress to stop fluoridation Docs, dentists, scientists cite
new evidence of serious health risks, ineffectiveness
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Citing new scientific evidence suggesting ineffectiveness and serious health
risks, more than 600 professionals are urging Congress to stop water
fluoridation until congressional hearings are conducted.
The signers include physicians, dentists, scientists, and environmentalists.
Their statement released yesterday (
http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html ) cites a 500-page
review (
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 ) of fluoride's
toxicology by a panel appointed by the National Research Council of the
National Academies.
The panel looked at a large body of literature in which fluoride is said to
have a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse
effects. They include an increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid
function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis and,
possibly, osteosarcoma.
The signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the NRC panel,
two officers in the union representing professionals at the Environmental
Protection Agency headquarters and the president of the International
Society of Doctors for the Environment.
"Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really
obsolete," contends signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel
Prize for Medicine.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/ ) says it "continues to strongly support
community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure
to prevent and control tooth decay and to improve overall
health."
The signers, nevertheless, say CDC data indicates dental fluorosis, caused
by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one- third of American children.
An online petition to Congress in support of the professionals' statement
will become available soon on the website of a group called the Fluoride
Action Network, or FAN.
www.fluorideaction.org/
FAN director Paul Connett asserts government officials "who continue to
promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the
powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report."
The statement to Congress notes the new American Dental Association policy
recommending infant formula not be prepared with fluoridated water and the
CDC's concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not
systemic.
The professionals also point to major research indicating little difference
in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
Additionally, they cite a Harvard study indicating a possible link between
fluoridation and bone cancer, noting the silicofluoride chemicals used for
fluoridation are contaminated industrial waste and have never been
FDA-approved for human ingestion.
The CDC insists, however, that in spite of the studies, "the weight of the
scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts,
comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual
studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels
optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma."
The Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-watchdog, the
professionals say, revealed a Harvard professor concealed the
fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years.
The president of the watchdog group, Ken Cook, says, "It is time for the
U.S. to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any
minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to
end as turning off a valve at the water plant."