Ottawa Concerns about fluoridation

In 2o13, many Councillors and Dr Levy received the Ottawa Fluoridation Report from Fluoridation-Free Ottawa with actual documents showing that fluoridation is unwarranted; not just lists. They have ignored its contents. Some Councillors have even refused to meet with me and others like me who defend cessation of fluoridation. The Ottawa Public Health office received their copy of the Report in the hands of Dr. Etches, June 13, 2013. Did she read it? Did Dr Levy read it? We doubt it, because they would no longer support the poisoning of Ottawans with toxic waste HFS in tap water.

We have the science: proponents pushing fluoride claim they have science but they have yet to produce it. Their only “proof of science” is their statements on their authority, endorsements, doctored studies by vested interests and assurances that they have science on their side. They even resort to some of the most egregious and ludicrous claims of benefits unsupported by science.

So why do people believe them? People believe them to be the experts that they are not because they are supposed to be the authorities, right? Why would they want to mislead us? Because they keep the company of others subject to invincible ignorance spouting out their “belief” that it works in a way that it does not and can not possibly work. They are riding this tiger and they don’t know how or when to get off.

Many like me have asked for their science. What did we get? The best they could do was give me a list of documents that they claim shows fluoridation is not a health problem. I’ve read most of those and guess what? They are flagrantly in contradiction to their claims! No surprise there to me and to those who have been aware of and battling this problem even longer than me. Yet they insist on claiming that the documents in their list is really supportive of their claims.

Proponents of fluoridation keep saying that they base their decisions on science based medicine. Well, that may be the case for much of medicine, but not for fluoridation. It baffles the mind how they can make generalizations such as these without substantiating them for fluoridation. They substantiate it for others. Why not fluoridation?

The fluoride acid that is actually used, as supplied, is a contaminated mixture containing pollutants not permitted by Federal and Provincial Laws and Regulations to be added to the water supply: think Arsenic, Lead and Mercury. So, why then is this acid mixture being used? Ottawa’s web site calls it Fluoride, saying that fluoride is natural. Not unless it’s Calcium fluoride (CaF2). Then they say it’s present in the air, water and soil. Wait just a minute here. CaF2 can’t be in the air: it’s too heavy to float around freely in the air. Then they say Hydrofluorosilicic acid is what’s used. Okay, I guess they like to confuse everyone on what’s actually used. Whoever wrote this web page content simply copied and embellished it from a standard text supplied by fluoridation proponents. How do I know that? Because some variations of it are found everywhere that fluoridation is advocated or implemented. Fluoridation opposition is a national movement and we communicate with each other. I contend that the collusion to implement and maintain fluoridation is a conspiracy worth investigating… The only ones to benefit from this failed medical intervention is the fluoride polluting industries.

Dr. Levy should have been replaced by a more competent person. That person should have full knowledge of the implications of adding a toxic, fluoride, industrial, waste chemical mixture to the water supply in the lame ,unproven and unsupported belief that it may reduce tooth decay. Why? Because it is being recommended as an “oral health measure” – that’s a euphemism, newspeak, for a tooth decay remedy, as tooth medicine. Pushers of this “unlawful drug use” all say that it reduces tooth decay; the water treatment plant annual mandatory report to the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario says “fluoride is added for prevention of dental cavities:” then it undeniably has to be a medicine, a drug use that has no place in your water supply.

The fluoride chemical used has yet to be proven safe for human consumption even if it releases a low concentration of the Fluorine anion in the water supply. If anyone would be foolish enough to drink even a few ounces of the acid used in fluoridation, it would kill them. The Fluorine anion is bad enough by itself, being a known protoplasmic poison, but the Hydrofluorosilicic acid that contains it is even worse as a fluoridation agent, but the whole mix that it comes in is the worst culprit of all. It is a pollutant, a banned U.S. EPA environmental contaminant that needs special containment at every stage of its handling and delivery.

We have been asked to prove that fluoridation is not safe, which is the reverse of what should happen. Any water additive is required by law to be proven safe for water consumers before being used as such. This has yet to be done even after over 60 years of fluoridation in all of North America where it is implemented on an endemic scale. The claim is that it is certified by NSF but NSF does not do safety studies on the liquid mix that is actually used for fluoridation: they defer the responsibility to the user as they do for all of their certified chemicals: their only purpose to to certify that the chemical is exactly what is claimed that it is: it’s a sham to use the NSF to validate its use as a safe product.

In spite of not having to prove lack of safety, we who battle to end fluoridation have done so with a multitude of research reports, scientific studies, peer reviewed articles and mountains of anecdotal evidence. Their response? Junk science! Pseudo-science! Cherry picking! We’ve been told that anecdotal evidence is not scientific, yet, in a court of law, when there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to attempt to prove a case, the accused is usually found guilty. The mountains of anecdotal evidence now available is the same as that type of legal evidence: it is real data about real people suffering consequences from drinking fluoridated water. These fluoridation drug pushers are doing this illegally and must be charged for doing so and found guilty. The law is on our side and must now be used to the advantage of the population that is being poisoned by fluoridation.

Clearly: it is illegal to release the HFS used in fluoridation anywhere into the environment under any circumstances, but, for some unexplained reason, it becomes okay to drip it into the community water supply (your tap water) on the lame belief that it might prevent tooth decay: there are limited and doctored studies that appear to show very tiny reductions in tooth decay, but no real, science based research: studies are not scientific. Fluoride drug pushers use biased surveys to prop up support for their fluoride drug pushing: i.e. “Do you agree to the use of fluoride in the water supply to prevent tooth decay” – that is a loaded question: who does not want to reduce tooth decay? The correct question: “Do you agree to a fluoride drug being added to the water supply?” and give opponents an equal forum to explain its use and the contraindications of its use. If they choose to use the qualifier “to prevent tooth decay” they must also say: “using HFS, a toxic, fluoride, industrial, waste chemical.” – that would level the playing field by telling the truth about the chemical used in fluoridation.

Many municipal Councillors, in their confusion, exclaim that proponents have their science that proponents of ending fluoridation have their science, and it is impossible to know and decide who or what’s right. Councillors claim that they are not qualified to decide on the problem. However, they forget that fluoridation pollutes the water supply that has been purified for drinking. They forget that fluoridation forces all those drinking that water to ingest a drug without monitoring for side effects. No need for science or medical knowledge: just logic and common sense. What else are they forgetting? We are asking for an end to fluoridation as we shed legitimate doubt and concerns on fluoridation safety and effectiveness. Shouldn’t fluoridation therefore be stopped until the quandary is resolved, just in case it’s really true? I mean, isn’t the evidence there and admitted to?

Proponents raise a ruckus and cry out that tooth decay rates will be going up and ask if Councillors want the responsibility of millions of rotten teeth on their conscience. What? Are they mad? There is no proof of such ever being true. In point of fact, the opposite has been categorically shown to happen! My question to these alarmists is: Do you want to be responsible for the millions of people’s illnesses being triggered or aggravated by adding that toxic, fluoride contaminant into the water supply?

The chemical mix used is not pure Hydrofluorosilicic acid (chemical formula H2SiF6), a bad chemical by itself, but does not meet Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) standards. It is produced in unsanitary industrial conditions of

a) production,
b) packaging,
c) transportation and
d) storage.

We have been tricked into using the fluoride polluting industries’ toxic fluoride waste as a disposal method passed off, and accepted, as a form of “tooth medicine” when it does not even prevent, reduce, or otherwise protect against, tooth decay.

This leads us to one more thing. Did you know that you are being medicated without being consulted and thus without your consent? That is forced medication on a grand scale. A medical doctor who would force a patient to take medication would loose his license to practice medicine. So tell me: why is a MOH by force of recommendation, causing Councillors to allow fluoridation to continue, making them part of a collusion to poison everybody? Because if he did not support fluoridation he may stand to lose his job, his prestige, his/her grotesquely high salary, and the respect of his peers. To put that ahead of the health and well being of those he is sworn as a doctor to serve is grounds for his dismissal: this is a scandalous behaviour for a MOH.

I say to Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health: make the right choice now. Maybe the citizens of Ottawa will be lenient and respect you more for having made the right choice and ask that you remain as their health care manager without reduction in your scandalously high salary and perks. What should be more important to an MOH? The health of residents or his prestige and the approval of his peers?

I say to the Citizens of Ottawa and FFO: please keep up the pressure. Your future improved health outcomes and that of all of your children and grandchildren, depend on it: d you care? Not acting to end fluoridation means that you are unfortunately allowing all of your loved ones to be poisoned by fluoridation.

Fluoridation is wasteful, ineffective, unproven, unsafe, unnatural, unnecessary and unethical. The acid used as a drug is unregulated and unapproved: it does not have a DIN for its drug use and is technically unlawfully used as a drug in fluoridation. Water is for everyone: fluoride is not.

There’s more, so much more, but my time is up. I challenge anyone in authority to discuss or debate the subject with me in a public, open forum.

About fluoridationfree101

I'm a webmaster, science researcher, mathematician and nutritionist who has beat the ravages of chemical sensitivities, especially the harm done to my health by fluoride substances, fibromyalgia and Lyme disease.
This entry was posted in bones, Chemistry, drinking water, Fluoridation, Fluoride, Health, hydrofluosilicic acid, legal, Truth, water. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.