What Happened to Freedom of Choice?

The famous British writer C.S. Lewis wrote several decades ago: "Where benevolent planning, armed with economic power, becomes wicked is when it tramples on people's rights for the sake of their good."

FREEDOM OF CHOICE is one of our most fundamental American values. For example, we would never accept the government telling us what we can or cannot read or what music we may listen to -- as was done by totalitarian governments such as the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Taliban. As a citizen of the Netherlands, I lived under Nazi occupation from 1940-45 and I vividly remember the censoring of all aspects of our lives including the revision of school textbooks.

We Americans supposedly live "in the land of the free" and New Hampshire proclaims on its license plate "Live Free or Die". Yet, somehow we have allowed our U.S. public health authorities not only to restrict our freedom of choice in health matters but to force their choices upon us! Two examples are sketched briefly below. You will find more details in articles on our web site.

-- Gerhard Bedding

Biography Gerhard Bedding:

Bedding was a co-founder of NH Citizens for Health Freedom in 1998 and the NH Pure Water Coalition in 1999. He serves as general manager and director for both organizations.

Bedding grew up in Indonesia and the Netherlands, emigrated to the United States in 1955, and became a U.S. citizen in 1959. His education and work experience covers a wide range: business, psychology, education, and science. He has earned Master degrees at the University of Chicago and Wesleyan University. For several years Bedding worked as a full-time science writer for Xerox producing a science magazine widely used in schools. He has also taught graduate courses in science education at Adelphi and Antioch Universities.

Bedding lived in the Netherlands from 1939 - 1955, including five years under Nazi occupation from 1940-1945. He remembers the Nazi¹s increasing censorship and the spin they put on the actual news facts. These early memories have given him a strong impetus to resist and reject spin, dogma, and manipulation in the U.S. His most vivid memories of WW 2 concern the "hunger winter" of 1944-45 when the northern part of the Netherlands was completely cut off from any food, fuel, or other supplies. There was no electricity or gas, no transportation, and no shops were open. Yet, people helped each other and came through.

Fluoridation

In New Hampshire the following towns currently fluoridate their drinking water: Concord, Dover, Durham, Hanover/Lebanon, Laconia, Manchester, Portsmouth, Rochester. In accordance with New Hampshire law, the decision to fluoridate was reached by a majority (often a tiny majority) voting "to add fluoride" to the water supply in those cities.

It should be noted in the first place that the ballot language "adding fluoride" is not only inaccurate but also fails to inform the voters which fluoridation agent will be chosen. "Adding fluoride" suggests the addition of a substance such as contained in fluoride toothpaste or fluoride tablets. However, the substance used by over 90% of fluoridating cities is hydrofluorosilicic acid (to be referred to as HFS from here on), which is obtained from the pollution scrubbers of the fertilizer industry and contains contaminants such as arsenic and lead. It is added to drinking water, untreated. The EPA's health standard, -- the MCLG, the level below which there is no known or expected health risk -- for arsenic and lead is zero. Yet, this standard is ignored when our authorities allow the use of HFS for fluoridation.

Common sense, and the public's right to know, strongly suggest that the actual fluoridating agent chosen should be mentioned on the ballot. Some towns use sodium fluoride, a powder, which costs at least three times as much as HFS. The voter has a right to know what he is voting for or against.

Let's return to the issue of voting on fluoridation. The nine New Hampshire towns mentioned above all had a majority deciding that the water would be fluoridated. Well, you might say, isn't this the way our democracy is supposed to work? Is it? Let's take a closer look.

Of course, we all accept that a majority can decide who governs, even if we might strongly disagree with the majority's choice. However, our democracy is designed to protect a "sacred" area of individual choice. For example, we cannot be forced to read a particular book, listen to a particular piece of music, attend a church, or be forced to choose a particular doctor. Accordingly, we should not be subject to a substance, added for medical reasons to a water supply system which is designed to serve everybody. To put it in simple words: Your doctor might recommend fluoridation; my doctor does not. Why should my doctor's advice be overridden by yours?

For more information on fluoridation, check the FLUORIDATION page.

Another Example:
Mandatory Chicken Pox Vaccine

Similarly, the doctor of your choice may consider chickenpox a benign disease and advise you to expose your child to the natural disease rather than getting the vaccine. In the fall of 2001, the NH Health Department moved to make the chickenpox vaccine mandatory in New Hampshire for school or daycare entrance. (We tried to stop this action, pointing out that there had been no discussion on the risks and benefits of this measure in New Hampshire's medical community, but try to stop a bulldozer!)

The new chickenpox vaccine mandate in effect overrules your personal choice which was based on the advice from your doctor. Yes, you can still use the religious exemption to avoid the vaccine, but your original decision was based on medical reasons.

Did you know that in November 2000 the members of the independent Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (all medical doctors) unanimously voted to ask for an end to vaccine mandates? They make clear that they are not opposed to vaccines but that the decision to vaccinate should be an individual one between the parents and the doctor. They object to the "one measure fits all" public health approach and the lack of attention given to vaccine risks.

For additional insight into the drive for ever more and more vaccines, including the influence of the big pharmaceutical corporations, check the VACCINES page.