UKCAF website

A Fool and his teeth
are soon parted!

City of Hull’s Councillors
fall for the fluoride scam.

Doug Cross
9th November 2016

Well, it seems that you really can fool some of the people all of the time. Councillors in the City of Hull are the first in Britain in over thirty years to fall victim to the brain-washing technique developed in the 1940s in America, to deal with an epidemic of tuberculosis.

The US Public Health Service's 'Health Belief Model' was designed to manipulate people's behaviour to persuade them to follow official advice on adopting a more healthy lifestyle.

At the heart of this strategy was the trick of 'engineering consent' from a public too stupid to act in its own best interests, and brain-wash the people to adopt officially recommended 'healthy' actions. (The most recent peferred application of this Model by the British government is, of course, the hilarous practice of 'nudging'!)

So here’s how it works, when manipulating Council opinions in support of fluoridation.
First the fluoride pushers tell the Councillors that they have a problem – their kids have the worst teeth in the region.

Then they frighten them, by warning them that their children can die if they have to have those rotting teeth pulled from their quivering little bodies under anaesthetic in a hospital. (No, I'm not exaggerating here.)

And finally these benevolent ‘experts’ reassure the by now thoroughly cowed Councillors (the 'good cop, bad cop' routine, really.) They tell them that there’s a simple, safe and effective (and cost-free) solution.

All they have to do is agree to allow the public water supply to be fluoridated, and all will be perfect again.

Don’t the public have the last say, then?
Nope - its far too late for that nonsense! Since the public is too stupid and lazy to actually begin to do something for themselves, such as teaching their kids better dental hygiene, the final twist has already been put in place that makes their stupidity irrelevant anyway.

The fluoridation Mafia have fixed the system, by persuading Parliament to pass laws that allow them to impose fluoridation if the public and Councillors are still too stubborn for their own good. The 2012 Health and Social Care Act went into ridiculously explicit detail over fluoridation, but mentioned no other provisions other in mental health regulation.

To the fury of the fluoride pushers, for years their determined advocacy of fluoridation has been frustrated by the stubborn general public. It was thrown out by the Manx Parliament and by Southampton City Council a few years back.

At the same time Hampshire County Council compiled a detailed breakdown of the practice and rejected it out of hand. Most recently Bedford Borough Council refused to allow the reintroduction of fluoridation in the town's water supply.

But the Fluoride Fanatics' persistence has at last paid off, and they’ve got the result they’ve been longing for in Hull. Inevitably, this will be regarded as a precedent for new schemes elsewhere.

Lies, damned lies, and (dental) statistics!
And it all comes down to a single massive flaw in the project – these ‘experts’ don’t know what they are talking about! Even worse, they simply lie - that’s even if they actually understand what they are talking about at all.

The whole charade depends on what is probably the most blatant example of statistical fraud in medical history. The appalling fact is that the figures on which these ‘experts’ rely are worthless.

Then, to cap it all, they deliberately misinterpret what little evidence they think they have in order to manipulate the Councillors into falling into line with Central Government policy. So much for 'localism' in politics!

So how bad are the teeth of Hull's children, then?
I’ll not go into details here, because people switch off when numbers are quoted at them. I’ve already published exposures of the fraudulent misuse of these data in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

What is happening here is that apparently precise figures have been bandied about, claiming to show that Hull’s five year old kids have rotten teeth – lots of them.

These claims are worthless. They’re based on examining absurdly small numbers of kids, and then applying the hugely uncertain results from those few to all five year olds in the area.

These ’experts’ tell the Councillors that the ‘average’ decay in all of their kids’ teeth can be reliably deduced from the condition of a small selection from the minority of five year olds who actually do have some bad teeth.

They also somehow neglect to mention is that most of these dentally challenged kids had only one or a few small fissures.

The absurd National Protocol for the oral health studies.
The National Survey Protocol for these dental examinations says that, if the numbers are to mean anything at all, then at least 250 kids in each Council area should be examined. That's regardless of how large or small the population is, which is silly. (There are 23 five year olds in the Isles of Scilly, and 15,892 in Birmingham!)

The Protocol also declares that if the plan is to use the results of the surveys to decide on what to do about a health problem (like fluoridate the water supply, for example), then far larger numbers of kids need to be examined to justify and intervention.

So how many kids need to be examined before the results can be used to impose fluoridation? The Protocol is strangely silent on this crucial point.

But in a similar unrelated study currently running in Cumbria, no fewer than 1044 kids are said to need to be examined before the results will be accepted as meaningful.

So how many were checked in Hull, and how meaningful are the official figures for bad teeth amongst Hull’s five year olds? Well, there were 3152 resident five year olds in the 2012 survey, and they looked at only 219 of them. Within that little bunch they found 95 who had bad teeth.

Later, in the 2015 survey (of a different group, obviously) of five year olds in Hull, they managed to scrape together just over that 250 barrier (they got 251 kids!) out of the 3,390 registered in the area. Curiously, once again they found 95 kids with bad teeth in their slightly larger sample.

Biassed – what us? Never!
Remember, only a few of the kids everywhere have really bad teeth. More than half of all the five year old kids in England - including in Hull - don’t have ANY dental decay at all Even most of that unfortunate minority who do have some bad teeth have only one or two fissures, not rampant decay.

Just a few of these unfortunates have lots of bad teeth - yet they're the ones who are responsible for much of the apparent differences between Local Authority area.

So the calculations for dental decay amongst all of Hull’s five year olds have come from examining a pretty marginal number of kids, with the few with really bad teeth contributing most to the calculations.

The results of these already extremely dodgy surveys are dominated by the condition of just the small proportion of kids - far fewer than the 95 kids in Hull - whom they found with really bad teeth.

And notice that in both these surveys, the numbers of kids examined was far too small to allow the results to be used to decide on whether or not there was a case to justify introducing water fluoridation!

Cherry Picking time has come round again.
So how did PHE present the results of these surveys to the Councillors of Hull? Well, they were warned that 43.4% of their five year olds had some dental defects. There are two problems with this.

First, no they didn't - that 43.4% figure is just a guess, and because so few kids were examined, it's a really bad guess too.

Second, why didn't PHE use the most up-to-date estimate anyway? In the 2015 survey, just three years later, tooth decay in Hull’s 5 year olds apparently fell to 37.8%.

Again, that's also a very poor guess, but apparently the Councillors weren't supposed to know that, But as PHE seems determined to ignore this inconvenient fact, I'll let it pass - for now, at least.

Now you might well suppose that this apparent 12% fall in three years in the proportion of Hull's dentally challenged five year olds would have been good news to give to the Councillors. It seems that the problem has actually been falling rather rapidly lately.

And that's not the only good news, either. Over the past three years it seems that the severity of dental decay (those 'mean values' for bad teeth) in five year olds in all of the countrey's Regions with the highest over all rates has also fallen dramatically.

And what's more, the overall prevalence and severity rates of deacy were higher across the whole country have been much more, and much faster,in the Regions which had the highest initial rates compared with those areas where it was already lower. The average amount of tooth decay in five year olds in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region is now one single defect per child, which is the original government target for the whole country.

In fact, in the past three years the severity of tooth decay in five year olds in this Region as a whole appear to have fallen at the fastest rate in the entire country, by around 33%. That's an astonishing improvement of 11% each and every year.

There's more. Remember that the average amount of tooth decay in all the five year olds is heavily biassed by the small proportion of kids who actually do have really bad teeth? So if the average severity of decay for all five year olds in the Region has fallen by 11% a year, then that fall has probably been caused by a dramatic fall in the dental decay rates of this same small group of kids with really bad teeth.

Which is actually great news: it looks like someone's doing something right then, even if it is in the notable absence of water fluoridation!

So how come PHE's ‘experts’ just happened to forget to mention these latest encouraging trends - after all, they're obvious from the official statistics, aren't they? Could it just be that they did not want to confuse Councillors with the good news about how fast their five year olds' teeth are actually improving?

Why did PHE's minions refrain from revealing these encouraging trends, and instead attempt to mislead the Council (successfully, apparently) by quoting a worse figure from several years back? Were they, in fact, putting the boot in, and lying, just to get a result? Was the ‘fear factor’ being promoted so that they could get their wicked way, to make the Councillors panic and feel that they needed to act, and act fast? Because that's what it looks like to me.

The bottom line – Do Hull's kids really have bad teeth?
What these dodgy National Survey data really suggest is that Hull’s kids ‘ teeth are no worse – or better – than those of kids in much of the rest of the Yorkshire and The Humberside Region.

In fact, in strictly scientific terms, it’s almost impossible to get anything reliable out of these surveys. Technically, the error margins of the estimates are so sloppy that they overlap. It is absolutely forbidden (by PHE, amongst others) to claim that numbers are different when the error margins of their estimates overlap. So why are the fluoride pushers allowed to ignore this elementary principle of statistical analysis?

The estimates for Hull are no more reliable or accurate than those touted around for many other Local Authority areas in the region. In seven out of the twenty other Local Authority areas in the region fewer than 250 kids were actually examined. So it turns out that many of those supposedly precise figures on dental decay in other Council areas in the Region are just ridiculously bad guesses too.

But the fanatical pro-fluoride ‘experts’ throw around their impressively precise numbers about dental decay as if they are exactly true. And then they compare these meaningless 'averages' with the equally rough guesses for decay in some other area of the country.

And instead of comparing ALL the data from ALL fluoridated water areas, they ignore all inconvenient evidence. Instead they fastidiously pick out some choice area where the numbers appear to support their embedded prejudices. This is the disreputable practice of statistical 'cherry-picking'.

In ordinary language, that’s fraud.

Ah, but kids get less tooth decay in fluoridated water areas, don’t they?
No, they don’t. That’s the myth that bounces back whenever the results of one of these new surveys are published and ‘interpreted’ by Public Health England and its cronies.

So here’s an interesting thing. According to these surveys, dental decay of kids up here in long-fluoridated West Cumbria, is no lower than that of Hull's five year olds. Nor are the teeth of kids in that bastion of water fluoridation, Birmingham, any better either. (Cherry-picking, wot me? Yes - but that's exactly the sort of example that the fluoride pushers use themselves , and even then they're utterly wrong!)

So no, the ‘evidence’, such as it is, tells us that fluoridation hasn't reduced tooth decay in kids. That's because the real reason is that poor health - not just dental, but many other forms - is closely related to poor social conditions, not the absence of ions of fluorine in drinking water.

And recent programmes teaching kids good dental hygiene are working brilliantly, even though they don't include fluoridation! Now what we need to do is get them to eat proper foods instead of junk!

So why go for fluoridating Hull, and why now?
Since there are plenty of other Council areas with five year olds with the same amount of dental decay as the kids in Hull, why has Hull been picked out for ‘The Treatment’, and not some other Local Authority in the region? And why so soon after the recent debacle in Bedford?

To put it bluntly, the fluoride pushers are getting desperate. They urgently need a precedent-setting new project. Perhaps they decided that Hull’s Councillors are just that bit more naive (or maybe even a lot more naive) than Councillors elsewhere in the region.

Whatever the reason, the gullible Councillors have swallowed the bait set out by some busy little fluoridation fanatic, hard at work whispering the words from the Fluoridation Gospel into their ears, behind the closed doors of the Council Chamber.

Despite a remarkable ignorance of real science, and a uniquely individual approach to the presentation of statistics he, or she, has managed to fool them into believing that their kids will soon have perfect gnashers, once fluoride is safely in the water supply,

Well, here’s something the good but naive Councillors should know first. When – or rather, IF – fluoridation of their water supply does happen, then a dozen years later they’ll see large numbers of their socially embarrassed teenage kids lining up outside dental surgeries, begging for cosmetic treatment on their disfigured teeth.

How many? According to the (reliable) York Review of Fluoridation, in Hull it could be as many as 400 every year. The cost to them? Several thousand pounds each. Every seven to ten years. For life.

Except that they can't have it until they're older. Dental veneers should not be fixed to teeth until they have finished growing, at around 21 years of age. (Coincidentally, free NHS dental treatment for kids ends when they reach 18 years of age!)

Why does PHE not admit to this down side of water fluoridation?
PHE lies about the risk of dental fluorosis, and dismisses the opinion of teenagers about its seriously adverse psychological and social effects on their lives, especially in these days of the obsession with artificially-brghtened Hollywood-perfect teeth!

Well, our 'experts' say,carefully ignoring numerous published reports of how seriously teenagers actually regard dental fluorosis, there's absolutely no evidence that it's a problem.

Quite so. Might this supposed absence of evidence just be related to the way that the National Statistics on children's oral health are collected? The National Protocol was originally devised by an outfit called the British Asociation of the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD), which just happens to be intimately in bed with that bastion of Fluoride Fanaticism, the British Fluoridation Society.

All teeth, the BASCD declared, even those afflicted with moderate or even severe dental fluorosis, 'should be counted as sound' if they don't actually have a conventional cavity.(Check that out in the photos of dental fluorosis below.)

This 'Three Wise Monkeys' approach to collecting medical statistics has now been adopted, word for word, by the NHS and PHE. So the real reason why we have virtually no data on how prevalent fluorosis really is that it's deliberately written out of the way that the surveys are run!

That's why PHE was recently able to call up just one study on dental fluorosis for England, and even then it deliberately misrepresent it, to try to claim that fluorosis is not really a problem. Oh yes it is - and it's getting worse, too!

The main cause of dental fluorosis is feeding babies with fluoridated water when they are just a few months old. Hull's future teenagers' dental disfigurement will have been promoted by those same nice folk – the dentists, no less – who so earnestly (and, it turns out, profitably) persuaded their parents to ensure that their infants did just that.

Are the good Councillors of Hull ready for that? Or will they simply make sure that they are somewhere else anyway, when the time comes?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Should be interesting.

Dental fluorosis - not something your kids will really want.
Dental examiners are told to ignore it, so we have no national statistics on how much of it there is, or how bad.