UKCAF website

Fluoridation sneaked into our homes
by the back door

The Health and Social Care Bill will force Councils to fluoridate water supplies - and then charge the public for disfiguring their children!

Doug Cross
3rd September 2011

The new threat to our Councils.

Councils in England are about to be dragged into a minefield over the controversial practice of water fluoridation. The Health and Social Care Bill was, as expected, nodded through Parliament earlier this month. And whilst there are many issues raised by the Bill that are causing considerable concern to Councils, one of the gravest appears not to have been recognised, either by the Councils themselves or by its 'union', the Local Government Association.

In a late version of the Bill, new clauses were introduced that spell out in excruciating detail, how Councils will be turned into accessories of the fluoridation hoax when our dozy MPs allow the Dept. of Health to finally put into practice its hated policy of nation-wide fluoridation without further effective opposition.

The Southampton challenge back-fires.
And it's quite clear that the Southampton Judicial Review debacle has had a decisive impact on the wording of the proposed Bill. Far from providing opponents with legal support to stop this practice, it has shown the fluoride addicts exactly how to make sure that they never have to face such an irritating challenge again.

Liberally scattered through clauses 32-34 of the Bill is the statement that 'Subsection (x) does not require the Secretary of State to consider the adequacy of any steps taken for the purposes of complying with any requirement to consult or to ascertain opinion'

So our benevolent Secretary of State will not be required to ensure that any 'consultation' is actually adequate. Any claim that a decision to consult was not based on 'cogent' arguments can in future be ignored with impunity - so much for that ill-advised legal challenge!

Following the refusal of the High Court to permit a Judicial Review of the law on consultation, Parliament is now being asked to allow the Secretary of State to act in whatever fashion he (or she) may see fit, regardless of the adequacy of consultation, or of any other objections to the proposed project.

The wording of the Bill appears to have been carefully designed to evade the Fluoridation(Consultation)(England) Regulations entirely - that's the law that stimulated the Milner challenge in Southampton in the first place. There is no requirement to actually consult the public in future - the only statutory consultees are the Secretary of State (no problem there then!) and the Water Company!

And ultimately the Secretary of State will be allowed to ignore any advice tendered even by the Water Company and him/her self - quite simply, all obstacles are being removed in this last ditch attempt by the fluoride pushers to get their vile practice endorsed by Parliament.

Localism - but not as we know it!
If the fluoridation provisions in this Bill are allowed to pass into law unchallenged, then in the coming months 'Upper Tier' Local Authorities will face an rising storm of protest, as people begin to appreciate just what an abomination Parliament has permitted the fluoride pushers to get away with in their insane obsession with dosing our children with toxic chemicals.

Make no mistake about this - the coming furore will dwarf all past battles over the public sector's support for the dental profession’s insane obsession with fluoride.

'Don't blame us - it's your Council's fault!'
At a stroke, this manipulative Parliament aims to transfer public revulsion for its love-affair with this practice away from Central Government and onto our local Administrations.

By making our Councils 'responsible for fluoridation', our masters' plot and scheme in the hope that this will divert public outrage against its back-door imposition of unavoidable, unwanted, and ineffective mass medication.

Under the reforms published in this Bill, the authoritarian and largely unlamented Strategic Health Authorities, together with their satellite Primary Care Trusts, are to be abolished. The government will transfer their subservient NHS Directors of Public Health directly into the hearts of our Councils, without need to ask for permission.

These self-inflating trusties will become responsible for ensuring that our unwilling Councils implement central government policies on public health. It is of course entirely coincidental that most of these politically reliable Dept of Health yes-persons are dedicated disciples of the fluoridation religion!

Under the proposed new law, they will be authorised to order their nominal employers, our Councils, to bow to the demand of Central Government, and provide those public health 'services' that are listed amongst the government's shiny new health policies.

And as I am sure that you will have guessed by now, the detested and thoroughly discredited policy of forcible fluoridation of our water supplies is one of those policies.

You can be absolutely certain that these comfortably relocated, unelected and publicly unaccountable ex-Directors of Public Health will do everything in their considerable power to make sure that our elected Councillors toe the party line.

Nanny knows best!
We who reluctantly subscribe to these utterly dependable public servants' substantial salaries and unimaginable pensions may decisively reject proposals to fluoridate our water supplies. But that will not matter in any way whatsoever.

In future, our Councils will be required to 'propose' new fluoridation schemes. Although they may 'consult' the public (on an illegal action? Someone seems to be somewhat legally naive here!) the results of any 'consultation' on the inevitable new proposals that we may be graciously permitted to attend can and will be brushed aside, in the 'Nanny knows best' response of a totally uninterested and aloof Department of Health.

This new Bill will ensure that any form of 'public consultation' between Councils and their electors over the question of fluoridation will be nothing but a meaningless charade, a diversionary carnival, put on to stop the natives from getting restless.

And as an even more insulting kick in the teeth, the Secretary of State for Health (now there's an ironic job title!) will be given the power to recover from our Councils the huge costs of setting up and running the government's new drinking water contamination projects.

Counting the costs - or rather, NOT counting the costs!
Behind all this scheming, a well-oiled propaganda machine is secretly cossetted by an incredibly small band of fluoride addicts in the Civil Service and Parliament. And in the present dire economic crisis, the greatest challenge to their monomania is the scale of the enormous costs of fluoridation. So they make the crucial mistake of trying to fiddle the books - and it's all turned out to be a bit of a disaster.

South Central SHA attempted to persuade the public that it could set up fluoridation plants for the City of Southampton for around 10% of the costs that the already fluoridating water supplier in the north, United Utilities, found to be the cost of converting its own plants.

And, as is always the case in fluoridation 'cost-benefit' analyses, whilst the costs of the 'benefits' - to the State were found to be at best marginal - the costs of the disbenefits to the public, in terms of cosmetic dental bills for their children, were deliberately suppressed - the Southampton public was not permitted to see them.

Now Councils will become jointly liable for those costs.
Under the new national fluoridation programme planned by the government, start-up costs across the country will be around £800 million to £1 billion, and annual operating costs at least £25 million a year. But these sums are peanuts compared with the sudden escalation of costs - unexpected by the government, of course - that will erupt into the public domain around the year 2020.

By then the government's new health watchdog, Monitor, will be in full operation, and it will become painfully aware of the rising epidemic in young adolescents with seriously disfigured teeth, the inevitable and predictable result of their exposure to the new fluoridation schemes in the second half of this decade.

And when that comes to light, there will be an explosion of compensation claims against both Public Health England and the Councils - after all, they're going to be the ones who were 'responsible' for proposing new fluoridation schemes.

Compensation claims for medical damages to our disfigured adolescents will grow, year on year, rising eventually towards around £2 billion every year. That will be for legal claims for remedial treatment alone - and that's at today's costs for cosmetic dental treatment. The costs of concealing the damage caused to our children's teeth will eventually make the initial costs of the project look like chicken feed in comparison.

Around one child in eight will develop 'dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern' in fluoridated areas at present, and it's getting more common and more severe as dental product manufacturers invent ever more ingenious ways to poison our kids with fluoride. And of course, none of this appears in the intimidating 'cost-benefit' analyses that are included in the expensive and worthless Feasibility Studies that are going the rounds in the NHS.

Paying for your children to be poisoned.
And it will all be heaped onto the heads of our unwilling and impotent Councils! We will simply have to grin and bear it (yes - even with those disfigured teeth) and pay up out of our Council Tax.

Yes, indeed - our children are to be forced to act as guinea pigs in this new round of pseudo-scientific medical 'research', and to run the very high risk of being disfigured as a result, and their parents are going to have to pay for that privilege!

And this moronic government's got mean - it is now being urged to charge us for allowing it to poison our kids. This obscene travesty of a public health 'service' will in future have to be paid for out of our already exorbitant and equally unavoidable Council Tax. But now, as the fluoride addicts have planned, we can always blame the Councils!

So this fluoridation religion is an example of 'evidence-based medicine', is it?
Our elected Councils, most of whom oppose this discredited practice, will become the scapegoats of the shadowy fluoridation cult, whose deluded members still believe that adding a poisonous chemical to public drinking water bestows upon it some mystical, magical, medicinal power.

Listen to them endlessly chanting the mindless mantra, "Safe and Effective! Safe and Effective!', even though their medieval quackery has long lost all medical credibility. Only two months ago the European Commission's most authoritative Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risk (SCHER) damned water fluoridation as 'A crude measure of systemic fluoride treatment . . . without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage’.

"No threshold"? Does that means that any fluoride at all in the diet causes detectable medical damage that is unrelated to its supposedly wondrous ability to stop children's teeth rotting? Indeed it does, yet these enemies of the public claim to know about science, and say they rely on 'evidence-based medicine'- even though they then tell us that fluoridated water is not a medicine!

Are these people kidding? Of course not - who do you think has the monopoly on doing those lucrative cosmetic repairs on teeth ravaged by dental fluorosis?

If the fluoridation provisions in this Bill are indeed nodded through by our 'Parliament of Fools', then the Masters of Spin employed by the fluoride pushers will have persuaded our ruling simpletons to at last ride roughshod over our infuriatingly independent Councils, who have so far been the last determined bastion against their hideous ambition to poison every child in the land.

Bring on the lawyers!
The public has rights that must be protected, even from Parliament itself. There can be absolutely no justification for Parliament's continued pandering to the senseless fixation of the sad and scientifically illiterate fluoride addicts.

These people claim that it is ethical - and even legal - to impose compulsory medication that damages many children for life, on the sickening pretext that it just might reduce tooth decay in a few. Such sophistry is a moral obscenity, an affront to the concept of Human Rights, and has no place in a civilised society.

The sooner the legal improprieties that have become entangled in this dishonourable Bill are subjected to Judicial Review, the sooner we can get back to working on the real central objective of our cherished but dangerously overstretched National Health Service - the protection and preservation of the health and welfare of our children.