Murray Rothbard on Forced Fluoridation

Commentary

Economist and philosopher Murray Rothbard was not only my mentor but also a close friend. Even though he passed away in 1995, his writings continue to shape our world today. In times of great crises, like the current one, I often find myself wondering what his thoughts would be.

The libertarian community faced confusion and silence during the COVID crisis, as I elaborate here. However, I am certain that Murray Rothbard would have stood firmly against the use of state violence to mitigate natural risks, particularly in matters of forced medical interventions.

Rothbard delved into the controversy surrounding fluoridation, maintaining his position ahead of his time. A recent federal judge has deemed forced fluoride in water as an “unreasonable risk” to children, potentially signaling the end of this practice after three-quarters of a century. His foresight remains evident in his detailed article on the topic.

In 1992, Rothbard fearlessly expressed his views on the subject, despite the prevailing political climate considering such opinions radical. He was steadfast in his opposition to the government’s use of power to endanger public health, attributing it to an alliance of ideological Social Democrats, technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking state privileges.

Related Stories

The full text of his article is included below.

* * *

Fluoridation Revisited (by Murray Rothbard)

Confession time: I have long been an opponent of water fluoridation, a stance that often associates me with the label of “rightwing kooks and fanatics.” It remains puzzling to me how environmentalists, who are quick to denounce various chemicals, endorse fluoride, a toxic and likely carcinogenic substance. Despite the lack of benefits for individuals above the age of nine, the entire population of a fluoridated region is subjected to mass medication for the sake of reducing dental cavities in children aged five to nine.

See also  Cory Morgan: Backfire of Attempt to Cancel John Rustad Holds a Lesson for All Political Parties

The argument against compulsory fluoridation is robust and compelling. The practice is both medically unethical and socialist, as it disregards individual dosage needs and imposes a uniform dose on everyone based on water consumption.

Rothbard’s critique of fluoridation extends to the economic burden on taxpayers who fund the massive quantities of fluoride added to the public water supply. The absence of benefits beyond a certain age, coupled with the potential dangers associated with fluoride, further accentuates the irrationality of this practice.

His meticulous analysis of the issue sheds light on the dark side of fluoridation, emphasizing the need for individual choice and the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all approach to public health.

As we delve into the specific drawbacks of fluoridation, the argument against this practice becomes even more compelling and chilling.

During the fervor for fluoridation in the mid-20th century, proponents highlighted a controlled experiment in Newburgh and Kingston, underscoring the adverse effects and ethical quandaries associated with this controversial practice.

Newburgh had been fluoridated, while Kingston had not. The pro-fluoridation establishment celebrated the fact that after ten years, dental cavities in children aged five to nine in Newburgh were significantly lower than in Kingston. However, opponents of fluoride pointed out that after ten years, cancer and heart disease rates were higher in Newburgh. This criticism was dismissed as irrelevant scare tactics by the Establishment.

The push for fluoridation began during World War II, with the U.S. Public Health Service leading the charge. Two Michigan cities were selected for a 15-year study, but the government ended the study prematurely by fluoridating the control city due to “popular demand.” This demand was actually generated by the government and the Establishment. Oscar R. Ewing, a Truman appointee and leftist, played a key role in promoting fluoridation.

Edward L. Bernays, known as the “father of public relations,” was hired to lead the PR campaign for fluoridation. He manipulated public opinion to support fluoridation, painting opponents as right-wing extremists. Despite scientific doubts about fluoride’s safety, the campaign was successful, and the majority of the country’s reservoirs were fluoridated by the 1950s.

However, doubts about fluoride’s safety continued to grow within the scientific community. Studies began to show potential risks of fluoride accumulation in bones, leading to issues like brittleness and cancer. Despite evidence of carcinogenicity, the federal government never conducted its own animal tests on fluorides. In 1975, a study reported an increase in cancer rates in cities with fluoridated water, sparking congressional hearings that revealed the government had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress mandated that the NCI perform these tests. It took the NCI 12 years to complete the tests, revealing “equivocal evidence” that fluoride causes bone cancer in male rats. Upon further instruction from Congress, the NCI analyzed cancer trends in the United States and found an increase in bone and joint cancer rates, especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated water compared to non-fluoridated counties.

In more detailed studies in areas of Washington state and Iowa, the NCI discovered a 70 percent increase in bone cancer for males under 20 in fluoridated areas from the 1970s to the 1980s, while non-fluoridated areas saw a four percent decrease. Despite these findings, the NCI had statisticians analyze the data and deemed the results “spurious.” This led to the formation of a bipartisan commission to review the findings.

The government formed commissions in 1983 and 1990-91, which ultimately concluded that there was no association between fluoride and cancer. However, doubts began to emerge within the federal government, with some officials, such as James Huff and William Marcus, expressing concerns about fluoride causing cancer and other health issues.

Even the long-held belief that fluoridated water reduces cavities in children aged five to nine has come into question, with some experts now suggesting that the dental benefits are minimal. Prominent pro-fluoridationists like Dr. John Colquhoun and Richard G. Foulkes have also turned against fluoridation after discovering its limited efficacy and potential dangers.

The reasons behind the push for compulsory fluoridation, despite mounting evidence against it, remain unclear. The involvement of Oscar R. Ewing, a key figure in promoting fluoridation, suggests there may be deeper motivations driving the fluoridation campaign. In 1938, the aluminum industry was gearing up for wartime production, but faced a dilemma with its major byproduct being a dangerous poison. The Public Health Service, under the Treasury Department, led efforts to change the public perception of fluoride, a byproduct of aluminum production. The push for water fluoridation was spearheaded by ALCOA-funded scientists, with the goal of both improving dental health and creating a demand for fluorides. The use of sodium fluoride, a byproduct of aluminum manufacturing, raised suspicions about the motives behind the mandatory fluoridation campaign. Oscar R. Ewing, who had ties to ALCOA, played a key role in promoting water fluoridation while serving in the Federal Security Agency. This saga highlights the collusion between Social Democrats, bureaucrats, and Big Business in advancing the Welfare State, with the interests of a few taking precedence over the well-being of society. Please rewrite the following sentence for me.

Source link