WHAT A pity Dr Clemenson didn’t mention, in his pro-fluoride article (Examiner, December 16), the more serious dangers of fluoridisation – for example, stomach cancer.
As the information about this and other problems connected with fluoride is well known, I won’t repeat it here. But I’m surprised the good Doctor didn’t deal with it. Perhaps he couldn’t.
If people want to use fluoride, they can buy the toothpaste that contains it. If they want further to reduce the risk to their teeth, they can avoid eating sweets and drinking pop. If they’re bothered about children’s teeth, they can encourage the use of fluoridated toothpaste and discourage the provision of sweets and fizzy drinks by ignorant, lazy and stupid parents. Having seen young mothers cramming sweetstuffs into the mouths of their infants, I’m all in favour of such people being arrested and charged with child abuse.
To enforce medication by fluoridation upon people who have no medical need for it and no desire for it is a form of assault and therefore a breach of their human rights. This should be actionable at law.
If fluoridation becomes a serious risk, I recommend some or all of the following.
First, ensure that any local politician who votes for fluoride is never elected again. Secondly, buy an ion exchange filter to get rid of the fluoride and bill Yorkshire Water for it.
Thirdly, don’t waste your time petitioning or demonstrating; instead, collect a small sum – say £1 or perhaps £5 – from every opponent of fluoride, then use it to employ counsel and take the authority to court. If necessary pursue the matter as far as the Court of Human Rights.
R S Phillips
Crosland Moor
