MORE ABOUT THE FLUORIDATION RACKET.
The medical profession was caught hands up when the final onslaught of the fluoridation racketeers hit the country; and the difference between the plight of the regulars and the homoeopaths was one of degree only. Both were caught in such an unblessed state of innocence as to the effects of the dose which the health guardians had prepared for us that the only defense the doctors have was, “Lets wait and see.” The homoeopath does have some incomplete records of fluoride effects but the regular, when asked what he thinks of fluoridation, has no leg of information to stand on; although intuitively opposed to the scheme, he has no experimental results to refer to. His knowledge of fluorides at best is confined to a few scattered items picked up from industrial effects or accidental poisonings.
Must not the members of the august Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry of the A.M.A., they who guard the sacred portals to the pharmacopoeia and the doctors kit, have felt rather flustered when facing the fluoridation dilemma? Not having firsthand convictions, which of course they could not have as to the effects of small dosage, from where did they shake out their approval so suddenly? From the U. S. P. H. S., no doubt. But the Councils fiat relieves the mere practicing doctor of responsibility (sic.). He can now refer to authority; for the authority of official power and privilege goes a long way in these days of popular unresponsibility. But the doctors know it was a fast one, judging by side remarks that have been made.
Well, our greatest troubles as usual come from neglect. The practicing regular has let the greater part of his initiative, and even his independence, slip away to bureaucratic imposition and the supremacy of the superpharmacist. The drug wholesalers and the tax money researchers now do nearly everything in therapy for him except to run in the needle. The superpharmacal and governmental interests largely guide the therapy teaching for the undergraduate and his graduate course is laid out for him by the medical journals and their ads, the detail man, the slicks, the press and a roaring popular demand for wonderful discoveries.
No wonder the doctor is in a pinch when his patients ask him what he thinks of fluoridation. If the regular practitioner and professor had continued to pursue independent thought and observation–like Galen, Hippocrates, Paracelsus and those to whom we look back to as fathers of the craft–the history of medical practice and its results would be different.
Even Hahnemann and Bechamp, too, by this time would probably have been included in the same galaxy.
As it is now, the purely medical man is deep in the shifting sands of commercial medicine, following one “wonderful discovery” after another, even cultivating a “follow up” of false cures and unrecognized metastases. Meanwhile he lets his leaders join hands with the bureaucrats while he himself is pushed farther into the background. The health bureaucrats need only more tax millions from our pockets, more jobs, salaries, swivel chairs and supplies and he will be blanked out entirely.
And the homoeopath? His history is much the same. Weakened by the influx of mental misfits, the exacting art of homoeopathic practice became so leukaemic that its false representatives traded away, or gave away, control of its own institutions; and of course its political status withered as a consequence. It was a perfidious performance that should go into recorded history as a warning to the future.
So now with our numbers so few and with activities at such low ebb for so long, how could we do an adequate number of provings? Of course we know from old experience about the insidious destruction that long-continued small dosage will cause, but how are we to recognize the specific signs of say, sodium fluoride or the stannum salt? Had we kept on the straight and narrow scientific path we would long before now have had a mass of knowledge of various fluorides.
Instead, we have on record, so far as I can find, only the effects of fluoric acid and on incomplete record of the fluoride of lime. These are masterly representatives of their order, to be sure, and mighty as remedies. Even that resource is better than no reference at all. Moreover, any such recording stands as a suggestive lead toward better days to come–we hope.
Incidentally, in answering the inquiry of a correspondent as to why the doctors seem to know so little about fluoride effects, the writer chanced to reply that its no wonder the regular doctors were confused as to what to say about fluoridation because they had never made provings of chemical substances so as to know what their subtoxic effects are, whereas we homoeopaths have had provings of many of them for about one hundred and fifty years. A telegram came across the continent from the secretary of one of the antifluoridation organizations asking permission to print the letter to which assent was given. In giving this assent, we had no motive of invidious comparison at this time but thought perhaps some thoughtful doctor might become interested in that kind of experimentation.