Is there any connection betveen the fluoridation of the public water supply and the spread of socialism?
Mr. J. W. Paine of Casterton, England, seems to think there is. And we agree with him all along the line. Mr. Paine was speaking before the Church of England Synod at Ballarat in England last April in support of the resolution: "That this Synod believes that the Church should insist more strongly and authoritatively that all aspects of Social Life be subject to the Moral Law".
The theme of Mr. Paine's address was the growing abuse of material power. By this he meant the concentration of power into the hands of a centralized government, and the increasing disregard by the officials of this government for the individual rights of the citizens. In the course of supporting his theme, Mr. Paine made the following observations about the fluoridation of the public water supply:
"So deeply rooted is the collectionist and materialistic philosophy today that some may wonder how the proposal to place sodium fluoride in the public water supplies can be related to the theme of my address, but I have no hesitation in submitting that here is another sample of the indvidual's inviolate rights being attacked while the Church remains silent."
"Deeply rooted" is the right expression here, for those of us who are engaged in the battle against fluoridation know only too well how difficult it is to arouse the general run of the public to the full implications of fluoridation (mass medication) with regard to the usurping of the individuals rights by the bureaucrats of our governments. If the government does it (whether it be municipal, provincial or federal), then it must be alright — so they reason. This is the attitude which Paine brands as being deep rooted collectionist philosophy. And where he speaks of "the Church remaining silent", we can add that the vast majority of citizens' organizations are remaining silent.
"The argument that fluoridation of water supplies reduces tooth decay in children without any effect upon the health, is, even if true, of little importance compared with the question of choice and personal responsibility."
And there precisely lies the whole core of the fluoridation problem. Has any group of government officials the right to take from the individual his right of going to a doctor when he wants and taking medication when he wants and not when some officials wants him to? Apart from this, the individual, along with the free will given him by the Creator, has certain responsibilities, which, while they are duties, at the same time give him the dignity which goes with responsibility — in short, the dignity of man, which is to exercise the function of free will. And when this function is taken from him and exercised by an agent of the state, he is in some measure robbed of his dignity of being a man.
"Let me hasten to say, my Lord, that I am not primarily concerned with the technical aspects of this question although they are very important. But in dealing with the fundamental, the moral aspect, it is necessary for me to point out that the repeated statements concerning the alleged benefits of fluoridation, the claim that scientific and medical opinion all over the world, favours fuoridation, and that only "cranks". are opposing it, are all evidence of a deliberate distortion of truth."
The truth is not only distorted, it is hidden and kept from the light of day, as is evidenced by the powerful American Medical Association's silence on any of the arguments against fluoridation.
"Eminent scientists of world repute, like our own great authority, on nutrition, Sir Stanton Hicks, have strongly opposed fluoridation. Christians should note particularly that Sir Stanton Hicks, has drawn attention to the fact that the proposal to subject people to mass medication is a drastic departure from the traditional medical ethic that every person should be treated individually, that different individuals react differently to the introduction or drugs and poisons into their bodies.
"There are large numbers of eminent scientists throughout the world who have had considerable first hand experience in research on fluorides, and who oppose fluoridation on both scientific and medical grounds. I can supply statements of these scientists to any sufficiently interested in searching for the truth concerning a most important issue."
And that is the principle and irrefutable argument against fluoridation. It is another step along the road to socialism, to the servile state.
The report of this address was carried in The New Times of Melbourne; the issue of April 24th, 1959.