GENRE: Email Letter
TO: Various email lists
AUTHOR: Dr Paul Connett
DATE SENT: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:06 PM
TITLE: The following juxtaposition should worry all Australians… (letter by Dr Paul Connett)
STATUS: Please forward widely
UPDATES: Please post all updates and comments in the LEAVE A REPLY section below.
EXTERNAL LINKS: Article URL: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/expert-warns-that-scaremongering-by-8216fringe8217-antifluoridation-activists-was-affecting-children8217s-health/story-fnii5s41-1226701345900
And here is the articles for the past week: https://www.google.com.au/#fp=6f3aaae556995282&q=fluoride&tbm=nws&tbs=sbd:1,qdr:w
…especially those who believe that honest and professional journalism is critical to maintain a health democracy.
Please examine the following two items side by side:
ITEM A. Read the articles and editorial in the August 22 Telegraph from Sydney. Note the bombast and bullying – to the point of printing the photos of the councillors who had the temerity to vote against fluoridation for Lismore. How dare they! Let’s lynch them! Not one word on the scientific evidence. “Authority” rules: Daily_Telegraph_Text_22 August
ITEM B. An exchange of emails between one of the journalists at the Telegraph – who might have been able to interject a view from the other side – and myself: please-acknowledge-professor-paul-connett-exchanges-with-journalist-neil-keene/
I am hoping that Australians who carefully examine both of these items will realize there is something seriously wrong with both this practice of water fluoridation and the “shock and awe” tactics used to promote it. This onslaught – orchestrated by God knows whom – is aided and abetted by a belligerent media. Such tactics would not be necessary if water fluoridation was any good. We could be charitable and say that the media hasn’t head the other side – but the exchange with Neil Keene clearly shows that this is not the case.
Please send this to every Australian (and NZ) activist, citizen, journalist, decision-maker, politician, scientist and academic that you know. We are not just losing our right to informed consent here but the willingness to use and entertain rational arguments in a (any) controversial issue – if it conflicts with government policy.