How The Fluoride Was Turned On

Mainstream media and medicines try to give us the impression that public water fluoridation was approved by an overwhelming majority in the past. They insist that the issue is not worth revisiting, and that we are wasting our politicians’ time. I would like to share with you the stubborn and crooked politics that introduced fluoride into Lethbridge water.

This information was retrieved from a report to Lethbridge City Council submitted by Doug Kaupp, the General Manager of Water and Wastewater.

How the fluoride was turned on:
In 1952, the Alberta government amended the Public Health Act and thereby dictated that decisions to fluoridate in Alberta be made by a local plebiscite. The Act required a two-thirds majority vote for implementation. This requirement was reduced to a simple majority vote by another amendment to the act in 1966.

After four previously unsuccessful attempts, the City of Lethbridge held its fifth fluoride plebiscite in 1974 in conjunction with the fall municipal election. With a slight majority of citizens voting in favour of fluoridation, bylaw 3236 authorizing fluoridation of the communal water supply was passed.

Lethbridge Fluoridation Plebiscites
Date             Bylaw  For   Against Rejected Required
June 26, 1957    2230   38.49% 60.92%  0.59%   66.7%
June 7, 1961     2384   52.86% 46.68%  0.46%   66.7%
October 13, 1965 2602   42.61% 53.77%  3.62%   66.7%
October 18, 1967 2711   48.32% 50.05%  1.63%   50%
October 16, 1974 3236   50.26% 46.78%  2.96%   50%
 
 
We can see here that it took five attempts and an amendment to the Public Health Act, to finally begin poisoning Lethbridge. So you can imagine my irritation when local pro-fluoride advocates insist that we give up. They attempted three times and rejected Lethbridge’s better judgment. Determined, they lobbied to have the bar lowered, tried again and still failed. Then finally, against the odds, they allegedly won by a miserable one quarter percent, and here we are today. 
This does not seem like fair play to me. What do you think? I hope that we don’t have to be twice as stubborn to overturn this atrocity. Although, I assure you, we are prepared to be!

This past Monday, January 7, the Lethbridge Herald printed an article about Fluoride Free Lethbridge’s efforts to persuade City Council to remove fluoride from the public drinking water (http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/front-page-news/brushing-up-on-fluoride-1713.html). The Herald also ran an online poll to determine if Lethbridge citizens wanted City Council to revisit the science and ethics of fluoridation.

I was very disappointed with how the whole thing turned out. The online article was followed by a heated discussion between pro and anti-fluoridation advocates. The thread remained available for viewing, even though many of the pro-fluoride advocates were behaving slanderously. Last night Mark Benson and Dr. Bob Dickson, a general practitioner from Calgary, made very effective cases against fluoride. By about 9:30 this morning, the entire thread was removed and the article was closed for commenting.

The poll turned out worse. The percentages this morning were showing that most voters believed the City Council should reconsider fluoridation. About 11:00 this morning, somebody (or several people) noticed that they could vote as many times as they pleased, if they deleted their internet browsers’ “cookies” after voting. They flooded the poll with “cheater” votes and threw off the percentages. When a Lethbridge Herald employee was questioned about it, he confirmed that the voting pattern was very irregular (too many votes in a small time period), and grounds for suspicion.

I want this issue dealt with fairly. Let’s not pick each other apart. Let’s pick the issue of fluoridation apart. Let’s talk about this openly. No fraudulent accusations, no falsified polls. Let’s clear the air and have a polite and factual discussion about this issue.

I have personally been harmed by fluoride. I have mild dental fluorosis. I have to say, it makes me angry. It makes me angry that no one will take responsibility for the harm that has been done to me. No one gave me a choice. No one is given a choice. We are being medicated without consent.

Why is such a controversial drug being prescribed universally? No one asked me how old I am. Or what my body mass is. Nobody diagnosed me. Nobody authorized a prescription for me. Nobody asked if I had a history of kidney problems, or an acute allergy to fluoride. Nobody asked if I wanted to be medicated with hydrofluorosilicic acid. I have had no right or opportunity to accept or reject this medication. So why is it happening?

There are no other instances where medicating without consent is permitted. Why is there an exception made for an industrial waste product to be prescribed to every single person in Lethbridge, without any concern for their individual medical status?

Do you want to be medicated? If you do, don’t you want to be asked first, or at least informed? Even pro-fluoride advocates admit that fluoride is only effective when in contact with the tooth (ie. Toothpaste, fluoride rinses). So what good is it doing me swallowed? Does one drink sunscreen for skin protection? So why not supply free fluoridated toothpaste to all those who want to be medicated, instead of forcing drugs on unwilling citizens?

We don’t dump vitamins or enzyme supplements into the water supply, just because we know they can be beneficial. We know we couldn’t control dosage or who it’s being administered to. Doctors would be outraged at such an irresponsible medical practice, just like they should be outraged about forced fluoridation. So why is the Canadian Medical Association supporting water fluoridation against its own basic principles and the law?

This is a violation of human rights, and it has to stop!