"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.
Fot recent more general topics, check out the 'Doug's Blog' contents menu tab
Liz's paintings make fabulous greeting cards for special occasions.
24th September 2016
After chemical weapons are used in Syria, now it's biological warfare - by proxy.
24th September 2016
We have all been sickened by reports of Bashir al-Assad and his Russian cronies dropping chlorine gas on the people in Aleppo. But the latest deliberate attack on the Bab al-Nayrab water pumping station in eastern Aleppo, and the closure of the other pumping station that serves the rest of the city, in retaliation by their opponents, moves the level of war crimes committed by these factions even further up the scale of atrocity.
They have already crossed the boundary prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, designed to cause indiscriminate and immediate but highly localized suffering and death to civilians. But now, their actions are designed to cause diseases that can result in both immediate death and injury at the site of the attack, but also will inevitably result in induced disease occurrences far beyond the immediate area of the attacks.
Attacking water supplies, particularly in war zones whose infrastructure has already been wrecked and whose populations are in desperate conditions, is just as certainly biological warfare as direct use of biological agents incorporated into the munitions themselves.
Of course, they will argue that targeting water supply facilities is nothing of the kind. The missiles used to attack the water facilities did not contain biological warfare agents, they will protest, so this cannot be equated with biological warfare.
I disagree. Targeting water supplies, and the facilities in which water is purified, has been an anti-humanitarian tactic of this detestable collaboration for as long as the civil war has existed. Only a year ago Marianne Gasser, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Syria, warned that, "Too often in Syria, water becomes a tool in the hands of fighting parties. It becomes a weapon of war." A weapon of war indeed a biological weapon.
But so far no one seems to have realised that this practice is indeed biological warfare, even if by proxy. The inevitable and intentional result of the primary actions is that people will be forced to find alternative sources of water, much of which is already dangerously infected by disease-causing organisms typhoid, dysentery, and numerous other pathogens.
It is, of course, no coincidence that hospitals and medical aid facilities have already been targeted. If the capacity of the crumbling infrastructure and the expertise of those staffing them, are destroyed, and the food and medical aid convoys attempting to re-establish even a rudimentary medical
capacity in the city, are eliminated, then it is inevitable that uncontrollable epidemics of fatal water-borne diseases will result.
Within the the strategy of biological warfare, last week's attack on the aid convoy was essential, since it rendered the efficacy of the assault on the water supply network far more effective. To such mentalities, aid convoys are regarded as a threat to military objectives, and must be destroyed or discouraged.
That the UN and its agencies was incapable of understanding this is a reminder that in the military area it is necessary to think like the warrior, and not the peacemaker.
Such indiscriminate 'germ warfare' has been practised for centuries, and is abhorrent to all humanitarian legislation. Yet weakening the resistance of those trapped within the city, and especially threatening the lives of the children, was the entirely intended physical and psychological consequence of the attack.
Paralysing the medical services by bombing hospitals and medical facilites, and then hitting the aid vehicles, was designed to promote the development of disease epidemics, and was, without question, a deliberate form of biological warfare by proxy.
But whilst we clamour for those responsible to be brought to justice, of more immediate urgency is that the capacity of the Syrian government and its Russian allies to continue these atrocities must be ended.
The UN wrings its hands in corporate anguish, and does nothing; governments issue lugubrious statements of disgust and they too do nothing. Only by halting this genocide now will the rest of the world be able to bring relief to the sick and wounded in this terrible conflict.
So what, you may ask, do President Assad and Mr. Putin get out of all this? Assad seems simply to want territory - all of Syria, regardles of its condition, or that of those wretched people of the Syrian nation who survive the war. If he wins the war, with Putin's gracious support, then perhaps in return Putin might be allowed to establish Russian military ports on the Syrian coast.
This would allow Russia unfettered direct access to the Mediterranean, a far more attractive prospect than the twisting narrow route from the Crimea down through the Black Sea and the Dardanelles. Russia's attempts to control that trade route led to its defeat in the Crimean War of the 19th Century, a fact of which Mr Putin is undoubtedly acutely aware.
A sideways look at water fluoridation:
where do we go next?
21 September 2016
I've not had enough time to update this site over the past few months, as I've been writing invited papers for several peer-reviewed Journals. So this update fills the gap! 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.
Don't you ever get tired of the never-ending fluoridation debate? The ceaseless round of name-calling, argument, counter-argument, bullying, and just plain stupidity that infests this persistent medical charade?
The hysterical reactions to almost any news, however minor, that mentions any substance that contains the dreaded letters 'FLUOR'?
The endless parade of Councils whose Members decide to stop fluoridation, only to be replaced later with new Members who vote to start it all up again and then who are then replaced yet again by more Councillors who reject it?
Does nobody ever say' Enough of this madness!
I've watched not always from the sidelines as 'experts' on both sides of the fence clashed in heated, and, generally ridiculous, repetitive debates in Council Chambers, Town Halls, and conferences around the world. As for Internet debates on press coverage of the subject, nothing is too stupid for publication!
Only today the 'Futurism' web site reported that the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia has found "fluoride in potable water to be safe for consumption, in optimum levels. The study saw that fluoridation had no link with low IQ, cancer, or any other perceived health risks." It would be hilarious, if it weren't so terribly sad.
Occasionally I've intervened, exposing some particularly absurd eruption of ignorance, stupidity or fraud for public entertainment (whatever DID happen to Britain's National Fluoride Information Centre scam?)
And I've embarrassed leading politicians and cautioned scientists on both sides of the divide over their deliberate misuse of data and utter disregard for the proper use of statistics. A little education would surely be a sensible start - and a little is exactly what they seem to have.
A waste of time?
And what effects have my little excursions into ridicule had? Virtually none! The pro-fluoridation lobby well, apart from Public Health England, that is - seems to have become just a little bit more sensitive to mockery than those against the practice, even though its ignorance remains untarnished by common sense.
And it's the same everywhere.
The anti-fluoridation sector brigade itself is far from perfect, but appears impervious to my taunts and musings, and soldiers on happily with its obsession with diseases that may - or indeed, that may not be associated with ingestible fluoride. As for law - perish the thought. It's not science, you see, and they have a hard enough time with that already.
When its members have been wrong, they seem determined to remain so (confirmation bias infects both sides), and thus they play into the hands of their opponents and their public relations cronies.
The rules of the game for fluoride pushers are different from those that the anti-fluoridation science camp relies on, and are more effective when dealing with scientifically illiterate politicians.
It's all so silly. I've asked both sides the simplest yet crucial of questions. If fluoridation law is independent of medical law, who says that its proponents can choose which set of laws to obey and which to ignore?
And if medical law says such therapeutic products may only be used once they've been granted an appropriate product licence, aren't all the arguments and research over whether fluoride is 'safe and effective' completely irrelevant? So far, I haven't had an answer from either side.
Above their heads
The real problem is that those who promote fluoridation believe absolutely that it works, and refuse to accept that close examination of the research on which they rely shows that it is of poor quality. That's not a good basis for any public health activity affecting the entire community.
Equally, opponents of the practice even those with scientific credentials, relentlessly sporting their Brownie Badge of Office to prove it fail to recognise that research into a prohibited intervention is simply a waste of time and money: the amount of research funding wasted on 'fluoride research' over the years is truly staggering.
Very few Councillors,have the necessary scientific expertise to decide if the claims of either side are credible, yet it is they who are expected to decide on whether or not to support fluoridation.
The same applies to dental practitioners almost all endorse the practice, yet don't have the training to actually analyse the reliability of what they have simply learned by rote, from dental school onwards.
And when national public health organisations, such as Public Health England (PHE), issue misleading propaganda designed to promote the practice, ignoring independent expertise that discredits their politically correct but wrong opinions, then it's time to call them to account.
Such medical malpractice is too dangerous to tolerate.
What we want is a precedent!
So, what are the proponents of fluoridation most afraid of? Simply this - they are terrified that medical law might be applied to public health practice. The give-away on this is that even the regulator of medicinal products, the MHRA, refuses
to recognise the inconvenient truth that fluoridated water is legally a medicine.
This misapplication of medical law is the key subterfuge that enables PHE to deny that medical law applies to fluoridated drinking water, and so assure the idiot public (that's us) that fluoridation can't be what we all really know it to be - mass medication.
Such collusion to mislead the public and carry out an illegal assault on the public in the guise of it being 'for the good of the people' is an obscenity, and demands an immediate criminal inquiry.
A clear decision by a Court that this product may only be supplied to the public once it has been granted a licence for medicinal use would knock the stuffing out of these authoritarian acolytes of compulsory medication.
Such a decision by a senior Judge would immediately bring the practice to an ignominious halt, and raise the vile spectre of State-imposed medication without consent.
And whilst not binding under other State legislatures elsewhere, it would send a powerful signal a legal precedent to many others around the world.
Once one State accepts that fluoridated water is indeed a medicinal product, because it is used with the intention of preventing a human disease, others would be forced to reconsider their own approach to this absurdly prolonged malpractice. It is no secret that if Britain were to take this course, fluoridation elsewhere would rapidly collapse.
After all, it's just not going to happen in Scotland (Nicola herself assured us on that, not so long back), the Welsh Assembly won't entertain the idea (again, personal assurances from inside Welsh Assembly), and it's no longer legal in Northern Ireland. It's only the dumb English who seem disposed to be treated like dozing morons and allow it to happen to them and their kids!
Strengthening public understanding
This is why I've given both sides proof that fluoridated water is legally a medicine, a view endorsed by leading legal experts. In this context, the public slogan that fluoridation is indeed mass medication, is absolutely correct, and becomes a powerful rallying cry that cannot be ignored in a democratic society.
Remarkably, neither side seems able to understand that this really is the key factor in this ridiculous confrontation. I guess that they're all too busy throwing rocks (well, insults, anyway) at each other to notice.
The international prohibition on any form of enforced medication emerged from the Nuremberg Trials, and is instinctively accepted by both public and the medical profession as ethically and morally correct. The entire medical code is founded on such robust and absolute principles as informed positive individual consent.
The pro-fluoridation slogan, claiming that it's 'safe and effective', is at last being countered by the far more comprehensible (and legally correct) rejection of fluoridation as 'mass medication' by the State. Ultimately, it is this understanding, and the formal legal support that underpins it, that will force an end to this detested practice.
What are we gonna do now?
So what needs to be done now? As far as yet more analysis both scientific and legal is concerned, nothing at all. We don't need yet more dental research into fluoridation. Nor do we need to carry out more toxicological studies into its proposed effects on other conditions.
Nor do we need to argue yet again that it's NOT legal to supply an unlicensed medicinal product to entire populations, either with or without consent. This is already totally established in both European and domestic law (and in many other Federal and State legislatures as well).
When Lord Jauncey observed. back in 1983, that fluoridation is subject to section 130 of the Medicines Act, (put simply, that it's legally a medicine) that was the definitive ruling that PHE and the MHRA now dismiss at their own hazard.
Public health practice depends on an ethical approach to medication that is totally at odds with conventional medical ethics It attempts to obtain 'the best result for the most people', with costs playing a central role in choosing which intervention strategy to apply.(see sections 2 and 3 of my recent paper on fluoridation).
In doing so, it accepts that this may harm a minority, an issue that is repugnant to the ethical framework of personal medicinal practice.
No choice ALL relevant laws must be obeyed
All that is needed now is a high-level Judicial Review to establish that the administration of fluoridated water to the public is permissible only when both fluoridation and medicinal law are applied to this practice.
These two arms of the law are NOT in conflict. Medicinal law kicks o top of fluoridation law when the product is to be used with intent to control of human disease (dental decay).
The persistent refusal of health authorities everywhere to obey both sets of laws is at the heart of this central issue of mass medication.
Abolish this malpractice and fluoridation will be just one of those temporary inexplicable medical madnesses that afflict the gullible when they attempt to bully others into accepting their own idiosyncratic beliefs.
An unhealthy obsession with fluoride.
Nanotechnology Perceptions 11 (2015) 169185
(PDF Version of the paper)
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, and through this shows 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 now affects more than half of entire fluoridated populations, most of whom would not have suffered from the original social disadvantage of having poor dental health..
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. 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) 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.
Important stories we've run that you may have missed.
What's up with Severn Trent's Water?
Companies must move quickly to resolve uncertainty.
The new Thalidomide?
Is the real cause of the Brazilian deformed baby epidemic another case of a misused vaccine?
The Circus is Back in Town!
It's a criminal offence to claim that any food has a therapeutic property, so we've referred the 'Dental Milk' issue in Blackpool to the National Food Crime Unit.
The claim that Calgary's kids teeth are getting worse is based on false evidence.
Two very different campaigns.
Anti-fluoridation campaigns are being fought in Wakefield, UK and in Oz,
Panorama, on 'The Zika Baby Crisis'
A travesty of scientific reporting
The 'Smoking Gun'
Exposure of infants to passive smoke in the home doubles their risk of bad teeth later. The 'disadvantaged children' tear-jerker used to promote fluoridation is a scientific hoax.
Out of control?
Why are Government Agencies allowed to ignore the laws that we all have to obey?
23rd March 2016
Blackpool's 'Dental Milk' saga is just the tip of a disfunctional Health Regulatory System that must be reformed. So when the government's official Regulators refuse to perform their statutory functions, just who do we turn to for Justice?
Is this really evidence-based medicine?
"The evidence suggests fluoridated milk may be beneficial to schoolchildren . . . The evidence was considered to be low quality due to the lack of relevant studies, the risk of bias in the identified [single] study and concerns over the applicability of the results to different settings and populations". (My emphasis added)
Yeung et al(2015) Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries.
I've written extensively on the Blackpool School Milk Farce, which has been trundling along for the past three years without any persons of common or garden sense - apart from Councillor Tony Williams and his little groups of 'activists' - showing the least inclination to be bothered by the criminal promotion of this product to parents.
Obstructing public access to Councillors.
Recently my email to Tony on this contentious subject was actually blacklisted by Blackpool Council's mail server. That's right - someone appears to have decided that information of a sensitive and potentially disturbing nature sent to an elected Member of a Council needed to be screened and, if it came from me, rejected.
Whether there was a human agency involved (well, of course, there must have been, at some stage anyway) or this was because someone decided that I am a such a disreputable source of information that all loyal Councillors need to be automatically protected from my wicked advice is entirely unclear.
But it seems that it all came right in the end. After a few cunning emails sneaked through, sent both openly from me and anonymously, it looks as though some sensitive soul somewhere within the Council's heirarchy may just have have got a little twitchy and eased off the filtering - if that's what it was, of course!
Don't talk to us, we're too important, we are!
But now I hear that even parents of children at Blackpool's schools are being forbidden to speak about this Dental Milk scam to members of the Council's Public Health team.
One mother emails to tell us that:
Just been on hold to Blackpool Borough council who have informed me I cannot speak to anyone in the public health team? I can only email.
Yes, well, we've all had that run-around, whenever we start to turn over a few stones in these scams and travesties, and something nasty tries to wriggle away out of sight.
So that's what's going down there now, then? The very same legal guardians of the children who may receive this illegal medicinal food are apparently being prevented from engaging in free and unfettered discussion with those who would impose this ridiculous product on their children.
A bit like Parliamentary Questions, really, then - doesn't matter what answer is given to inconvenient questions, just as long as something is said, no matter how daft. Box ticked, end of problem!
Not that this aloof secrecy would actually clear things up at all, of course, these same Public Health 'experts' being so woefully ignorant of both medical (and food) law and of even the simplest concepts of medical science and toxicology.
But it's the principle of free exchange of medical information that's at stake here (Oh damn! Of course - it's NOT a medicine, stupid me! So that's how they get around it, then.)
Whatever happened to public consultation, to providing complete, and above all, balanced information that allow parents to provide fully informed consent?
But then the unpleasant reality barges in again, and we remember that, as far as these Shylocks are concerned, we're not dealing with real medicine at all - the MHRA says so, so there!. So none of these irritating constraints actually apply. As Mr..Punch always said when bashing poor Judy around, "That's the way to do it!"
The cavalry are coming - but then, perhaps they're not.
I mentioned recently that I referred the claim that Dental Milk prevents tooth decay to the Food Standards Agency's 'Food Crimes Unit', since they are the ones who have the mandatory responsibility to prevent the sale or marketing of all illegal foods.
Dental Milk is an illegal food because it has been dosed with fluoride with the specific intent to prevent the disease of tooth decay, and is promoted for that
precise purpose. Claiming that it does just that is a criminal offence in English law, and our valiant Food Crimes Unit is ready to jump in there and feel a few collars.
Well - it is, isn't it? Err - no, actually.
The way that our brave and heroic Food Crimes Unit proposes to put a stop to this little scam is so blindingly simple that I'm still trying to get my head around it's brilliant, if contorted, logic. For our Food Police have, most helpfully, refered me right back to Public Health England!
Those of you who have been following this little saga will be aware that this is the very same gang of villains who have been illegally promoting this Snake Oil Remedy to Councillors and parents from the very start of the action!
So now we have what is surely the most comprehensive stitch-up in medical fraud in years. A small but immovably fanatical brotherhood of Fluoride pushers, based not at all loosely on the British Fluoridation Society, whispers their drivelling nonsense about fluoride to Parliament. This then passes idiot laws to allow fluoridation even when they are incompatible with existing legislation on both medicines and food.
That's well dodgy, that it - if they do this then how can you be sure they don't do it with other dodgy substances and fake products as well? Really sure? Really REALLY sure? Ah - right.
Then the Regulator of medicines, the MHRA, conspires with government to keep the fact that fluoridated water is actually a medicine well out of the public's awareness. That's how they manage to improperly exempt both fluoridated water and milk from regulation as medicines, which would put them both straight out of circulation.
As a part of the scam, the same scientific illiterates also persuaded the Brussels Bureaucrats that fluoride is a mineral (in the sense of being an essential substance, without which we would all undoubtedly perish from rotting gums), against all common sense and scientific fact. (Got to be good for you, Squire - fluoride's natural, that is!) (Damn! That's aniother illegal claim too!)
That little Contnental Adventure allowed the Food Safety Agency to ignore complaints that fluoridated milk is an illegal medicinal food, because fluoride, as everyone knows, is a mineral, not a medicine (MHRA says so) so Dental Milk is still a food then, so that's OK then. (No it's not! That criminal offence of claiming a food prevents a disease - remember that then?)
Our happy band of conspirators then scuttled off to the Department of Health, whose policy-wise but entirely deranged bean-counters briefed their scientifically illiterate Departmental Ministers on the inestimable benefits of fluoride. (Ah well - you learn to spot these tricky circular arguments after a time, when they're set out that simply.)
This little scam then spured the NHS to cosy up with the sycophantic Agencies, the Food Standards Agency and Public Health England, to mount a determined Terorist Action Plan to make sure that every child in the country is equal.
That means they intend and plan that every child shall be equally exposed to this absurd 'mineral' as early as possible in their vulnerable young existences. And both Agencies busily collude to sell their farago of myths and inventions to the public - that's you, me and the people of Blackpool, among others.
So now, the entire Establishment has got this travesty of 'evidence- based dental health' sewn tightly into a sticky little ball. We, the public have no access to justice, because quite simply, there isn't any left to go around.
There is. of course, only one way to beat this - we have to make noise, LOTS of noise, over the complete eradication of our human right to protect our children from this arbitrary and extreme form of State-imposed medical quackery.
Parents hold the key to breaking this strangle-hold - so just tell those silly school heads how things are going to be in future, and make damned sure that your MPs are dragged, screaming and kicking if necessary, into the action.
For a more detailed commentry on the implications of this appalling travesty of 'evidence-based science' which now corrupts the entire British Health Regulatory system,
Yeah, right on!