UKCAF website

Go to content

Main menu:

"Councillors have a responsibility to uphold the basic Human Rights of the people they represent to choose what medication they and their family wish to take, and not have it enforced through their water supply."
(Councillor Adrian Underwood, South Ribble District Council,
First Chairman of North West Councils Against Fluoridation, 1989)

Where to find the information on fluoride science, law and politics.

Due to restructuring of this site, all the important older fles that you need for research and argument in the Council Chamber are now available by clicking on the 'Documents' Tab at the top of the page menu, then looking at the pop-up sub-folders.

For recent more general topics, check out the 'Doug's Blog' contents menu tab

Liz's paintings make fabulous greeting cards for special occasions.

26th January 2017


Trump approves fluoridated waterboarding of dissidents.

An alternative view of the new American politics.)

Doug Cross
26th january 2017

In a fiendishly cunning move against opponents of water fluoridation, President Trump has declared that he supports waterboarding as a method of persuading dissidents to tell him the truth. This will come as welcome news to the American Dental Association (ADA).

Waterboarding involves placing a saturated cloth over the face of a carefully restrained person (in dental public health terms, 'disadvantaged'), then running a healthy flow of yet more water across it. The best available research suggests that the subjects of this State-approved near-drowning experience invariably experience a life-changing state of enlightenment, in which they are able to engage in approved therapeutic cooperation with their interviewers.

It is, of course, all done in the best possible taste, because it's designed to help the subjects to understand the errors of their previous wayward convictions, enabling them to endorse the benevolent aspirations of the State.

Waterboarding has been developed to a high standard of safety and efficacy by dedicated researchers at an exclusive research facility in Cuba, and has now been approved for more general public use on the American mainland.

Its declared objective is to provide a positive psychological reallignment of the mental health of the patients. It thus provides an immediate and substantial benefit to the communities into which treated subjects will, eventually, be introduced, once they have renounced any unapproved religious beliefs. The practice can therefore be reclassified as a public health intervention, entirely consistent with the ethical framework under which public health interventions are regulated under the Constitution.

The new President's rapid move to implement this absolutely safe and effective therapeutic practice has far-reaching implications, not least for the dental profession. For years its Members have argued that unwarranted harassment by The Antifluoridation League has prevented vast numbers of American citizens, especially the disadvantaged, from enjoying the therapeutic benefits of water fluoridation.

By declaring public health interventions that benefit the community to be ethically acceptable, the entire approach to American community healthcare has at last been brought into the twenty first Century.

This will, inevitably, be welcome news to the dental fraternity. President Trump's personal approval of compulsory therapeutic treatment for the disadvantaged provides powerful support to those members of the Profession who have in the past been gratuitously harassed by antifluoridation extremists.

Like waterboarding, State-approved water fluoridation is founded on the principle that the welfare of the community transcends the protection of individual rights. Unfortunately, this view has been challenged as being incompatible with that of medical ethics, whose advocates are perversely opposed to any State-imposed universan and compulsory medical treatment. Now, both waterboarding and fluoridation have become legitimate, taking their rightful place in the American Way of Life.

And an additional benefit that will delight the hearts of the American Dental Association is that water boarding will henceforth be carried out using only optimally fluoridated water, at no additional cost to the State. The public will now, surely, be queueing up for the treatment.



Will our leaving the EU affect
the legal status of fluoridation?

18th January 2017

Among the political debates over our trade with the EU bureaucracy once we get out from under their ponderously complex self-preserving rules, the question of the legitimacy of water fluoridation lies well towards the bottom of the UK government's list of priorities. Yet it encapsulates most elegantly an apparently neglected aspect of the implications of our future trade with the EU.

I've written extensively on the incompatibility of EU medicinal and food law with the malignant misinterpretation on these by the British Medicines Regulator expressly designed to allow Public Health England to continue to try to force the practice on resistant communities. The illegitimacy of this official approach has been formally discredited by Shaw in 2012.

So, once we are free to make our own trade agreements, will the Department of Health at last be free to ignore EU law and roll out fluoridation across the entire country, as it has repeatedly expressed its ambition to do so? If you're worried that this may be the case, relax – there's a couple of simple facts that everyone seems to ignore.

First, the legacy of our past association with this administrative dinosaur is an all-pervasive permanent framework within our own legal system. This will not – indeed, can not - just disappear at Brexit.

A very large proportion of our laws are derived from European legislation. The Medicines Act of 1968, for example, emerged from the original EU Directive, 65/65/EEC on medicinal products for human use. Then there's the extensive food law that also applies to fluoridated water. Our own Food Safety Act implements the provisions of EU Regulation 1925/2006 on food additives, and Regulation 178/2002, on food safety.

Since the provisions of such European legislation are, in the main, rational and well-founded, we cannot simply ditch them from English Law and replace them with something entirely different. So don't expect anything to change as soon as we leave the EU – the government has far more urgent issues to resolve in getting new trade agreements in place.

Second, just because we are leaving the EU, this doesn't mean that we will abandon the European marketplace. We'll still wish to sell our goods to them, under whatever trade arrangements they wish to make.

And you can be quite certain that the peevish Eurocrats will do anything possible to frustrate British traders, just to get back at us for daring to walk away from their precious empire. So they will insist that we comply absolutely with their legal requirements about selling them, for example, prepared food products.

How? Well, here's one simple ruse they might adopt. In EU law it is now illegal to use the chemical substance used to fluoridate drinking water – fluorosilicic acid – as a source material for adding the so-called 'mineral' fluoride to foods. So any such product prepared in the UK using fluoridated tap water can be prohibited from importation into the EU, an issue that raised considerable alarm among Australian exporters of their foods to the UK when I first pointed this out back in 2014

Whilst the British and EU governments simply ignored this slight inconvenience back then, the EU Regulations on food ingredients and food safety remain firmly in place and can be invoked at any time to block food trade from the UK to the EU, unless it can be certified free of such contamination.

Bureaucracy? Sure, but so what? So unless we continue to observe the full details of provisions of EU law, in whatever field of trade we attempt to engage in export deals, we will not be permitted to do business with them – or at least, only on their own terms.

And what about those claims that, once we're out we'll be free from the machinations of that downright dangerous European Court of Justice? Sheer rubbish! If we want to deal with Europe, then we are just as subject to the Court's rulings – at least on trade – as before.

In the past the Court has issued a number of decisions that confirm my arguments that fluoridated water is NOT subject to the Drinking Water Directive, but must be regarded as a medicinal product. Those decisions indicate how our own judiciary should interpret English medicinal and food law, since our own laws derive from the EU laws.

And if we want to trade with the EU after Brexit, then the Court's original decisions on any relevant matter will still dictate how we interpret whatever derived legislation may exist in English law.

Like it or not, we're going to have to comply with the EU legal system for many years to come. The British government will have to leave all of the relevant medical and food legislation in place if we want to sell our food products to our European neighbours.

So as far as fluoridation is concerned, this gives the EU's hostile French trade 'negotiator' one more lever to force us to kowtow to their demands. If we get too stroppy, the Eurocrats can easily block our food exports to their Member States.

While our own conniving politicians have ignored this problem here in the UK, it's still illegal to export such contaminated food products to Europe, unless, that is, they've got a medicinal product licence!

And if you're reading this in Ireland, or indeed, Down Under, any move against Britain in this direction could rapidly blow up into a much wider trade war between the EU and your own food industries too.

So we – and you all out there too – have a choice. Get rid of this obstruction to international trade now, or face the future with this threat hanging over your heads. The British 'Child Smile' dental health campaign is having a great effect on reducing kids' oral health, we don't need fluoridation anyway (did we ever?)

. So start thinking rationally and eliminate this controversial practice now. Let's act like grown ups; that way we can end the foolish witterings of infantile politicians, and get on with living in the real world!


A Fool and his teeth are soon parted!

Hull's dozy Councillors agree to water fluoridation.
They're the first Council in thirty years to fall for the fluoridation scam.

9th November 2016

The decline in scientific competence of the average Citizen seems to be working to the advantage of the Fluoride Fanatics. After an excruciating period of contemplating their corporate navels, Hull's Councillors have at last decided to believe the overblown authority of Public Health England and the ear-bending whispers of its statistically illiterate minions embedded in their midst.

For these misguided Councillors, their semblance of authority is of more importance than real evidence that fluoridation does not work. So they have swallowed the lies fed to them.

But even more hazardous for themselves, they have also come to believe the absurd claim that it's actually legitimate to administer this unlicensed medicinal product to the children within their administrative area.

And that could end in tears for the hapless Councillors.

The whole charade is utterly dependent on the deliberate statistical fraud that underlies the attempts to shock Councillors into accepting the fluoridation dogma.

The good Councillors are, of course, blissfully unaware that they're victims to a carefully developed programme of 'engineering consent', devised seventy years ago by the US Public Health Sevice in collaboration with Claude Bernays, 'the father of public relations' - what we now refer to as spin .

So now, someone needs to ask the government's Statistical Watchdog, just how does the deliberate fraudulent misrepresentation of official data on children's dental health sneak past the Quality Assurance Police?

These Guardians of our data have been set up to prevent us and our Councillors from being misled by charlatans trying to sell the public their Snake Oil remedies.

And while they're at it, could some lawyer demand of Public Health England who the hell gave it permission to chose which laws it will obey and which it decides to ignore, apparently with complete impunity.

Fluoridation has, God help us, been declared by our moronic Parliamentarians to be a legitimate form of medical assault on the general public.

But it's also a medical intervention, and so completely subject to the full Medicial Code of Practice. It is, indeed, State-enforced mass medication.

The whole charade that fluoride is not a medicine was dismissed by Lord Jauncey, back in 1983, and reinforced by David Shaw's analysis in 2012. Yet still the lie persists, and on this lie alone fluoridation is allowed to continue in Britain.

So why is not PHE forced to obey ALL of the laws that apply to its actions, just as we common folk are?

Hull's threatened infants do NOT have the worst teeth in the Region. Nor are they even worse that those of the kids in the Fluoridation Fanatics' beloved flagship of Birmingham.

So why have these kids been specifically picked out for the propaganda war with which the fluoridation fanatics attempt to set their desperately-wanted precedent within our anti-fluoridation society?

It's all a monumental scam, with supposed 'evidence' being plucked like a rabbit out of the corporate hat of the obsessive pushers of water fluoridation. Heads should be rolling around in the sewers of Parliament and its lickspittle Agencies.

Why are they not?

For a summary, CLICK HERE - if you think you can stomach reading more on this travesty of 'evidence-based dentistry' and 'public health'.


Cross D. An unhealthy obsession with fluoride.
Nanotechnology Perceptions 11 (2015) 169–185

My recent paper in
Nanotechnology Perceptions is a 'Must Read' for those interested in the strategy that has governed fluoridation for the past half century and more.

There are several detailed histories of water fluoridation knocking around the Internet, filled with details on who did what, when and where. But they all miss the most important factor - how did they do it? How come the absurd concept of putting a neurotoxin into public water supplies became so eagerly accepted by apparently rational and even educated people?

There are plenty of theories about this, from the sci-fi parody of Dr. Strangelove to the pradox of Public Health England's ridiculous travesties of scientific reporting. But none identify exactly how the consent of supposedly educated and scientifically literate State governments - and through them the general public - was 'engineered' through bribery and misinformation by the US Public Health Service (PHS)

At the heart of the strategy adopted was the PHS's 'Health Belief Model' - an analysis of why people failed to adopt health protective measures that the PHS assured them were reliable, safe and effective.

My new paper analyses the ethical divide between public health and medical practice. I show how natural and inevitable inequalities in health - including dental health - within disadvantaged minorities are converted by forced fluoridation to a universal inequity (an injustice).

This injustice now affects around half of entire fluoridated populations who are under sixty or more years of age. Many (indeed, most) of these victims - rich and poor alike - would not have suffered from an original social disadvantage of having poor dental health had fluoridation not been imposed on them..

I know that many of you will not have come across this paper before, since some of our supposed 'colleagues' seem reluctant to publicise anything that I write, especially if it's in the realm of 'science'.

Yet this was published in a respected peer-reviewed Journal, and so is regarded as a formal source when this subject is debated. It lifts the lid on a whole can of worms, exposing the real agenda behind water fluoridation in a way that no one else (apart from Prof. Brian Martin,
Down Under in Oz) has done before.

Read this and you'll get an insight into the madness afflicting the dental public health sector that will never let you trust them with your health (or, indeed, your teeth) again! Then send a copy out to your real friends - and maybe even the dental health folk themselves. They just might learn something about their own prejudices.

Back to content | Back to main menu