UKCAF website

Out of control:

Why are government agencies allowed to ignore the laws that we have to obey?

23rd March 2016

Parliaments and other legislatures make laws to protect us from villains. Some of the villains try to flog us products that they claim will cure us from ill health or worse, but won't. They're dangerous folk, and need to be slapped down when they try it on. Bad medicine can kill us, just as bad health can.

Since some of the Bad Guys have pots of cash, and are prepared to spread it about a bit to encourage sales, the ordinary Guy In The Street finds it hard to deal with these hooligans. So Governments set up what they call Regulators, bands of Goodies who go in there and sort out the Baddies. They have clout and, supposedly, they are expected to use it.

Looking the other way – but not for Mr. Perkins.

So what happens if these Regulators just go 'Humm!' and 'Harr!' and look the other way? Who regulates the Regulators? I only ask because this is exactly what is happening now, here in the supposed home of modern democracy, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Take the case of the unfortunate Ian Perkins, of Hammersmith, London. Mr. P ran a shop selling herbal remedies, to try to earn a crust or two. But he fell foul of the law when it emerged that certain of these products were being promoted with claims that they could actually cure diseases.

Oh deary me, no, that's not allowed. It's OK only if you've paid the Regulator up front and got a medicines licence for the stuff. But if not, you're in deep trouble – claiming that an unlicensed product actually works is a criminal offence.

So when the Food Police got wind of Mr. P and his unlicensed remedies, they stepped in sharpish. He was hauled up in front of the Court and fined for making false medical claims. In short, he committed a criminal act, and had to pay the price.

Protected claims – provided you've paid up first

Particularly reprehensible was the suggestion that one of his products could cure cancer. That's a heavily protected claim, that is, and only those with large stashes of the readies – like certain Pharma outfits –

and expensively obtained licenses are allowed to employ such interesting language when promoting their products (even when they don't really work that well either.)

It is just not on for any Tom, Dick or Harry to go around claiming that their product is likely to do the same thing, only cheaper, even if it's actually true.

'Doing a Perkins' in Blackpool

So now we have the Borrow Foundation doing a Perkins, claiming to Councillors in Blackpool that its 'Dental Milk' prevents tooth decay.

You'd expect the Combined Tooth and the Food Police Task Force to be charging in there with all guns blazing, would you not? After all, this is not some back-street herbalist doing some minor business to bring in a pittance, this is large and wealthy charity pushing 'Dental Milk' as a wonder food.

To put this firmly in perspective, milk is a food. This 'Dental Milk' is sold as a nostrum for – allegedly - preventing tooth decay in infants.

That's a medical claim if ever there was one, so where is its licence?

Well, it doesn't actually have one – try asking your friendly local Dental Milk pusher for one and watch him (or her) flounder and waffle away about fluoride being a mineral, so that's all right then!

No it isn't! That criminal offence bit? It applies to any food and to any ingredient added to a food with the intent to medicate the consumer.

So it's just as much an offence to claim that the 'mineral' fluoride has a medicinal property as it is to claim that this Dental Milk junk food has the same amazing property.

And this is where things start to get really scary. Our little band of dedicated fluoride pushers has gone way over the line.

They've persuaded the gullible fools in the National Health Service (NHS) and Public Health England (PHE) to fall for their claims.

The fools in these agencies promote the product as if it were still some sort of food that our kids can't do without (unless they drink that fluoridated water stuff, of course.)

So let's summarise the position – clear the desk for some simple thinking, for once.

One – the marketing of any product at all for which a medical claim is made must be regulated by the Regulator of Medicinal and Healthcare Products (the MHRA). Without a Formal marketing licence from the MHRA, even just promoting any such product as being able to cure or prevent a disease is itself a criminal offence, regardless of whether it's normally regarded as a food.

David Shaw's analysis of medicinal law has confirmed that the claim that drinking water with added fluoride is not a medicine is 'a legal fiction' – that means it's simply a lie - to. The same conclusion must apply absolutely to fluoridated milk. So who's responsible for sending in the heavies when the baddies start pushing the F products? Why – it's our old buddies at the MHRA!

Lies, damned lies, and Regulators

And what happens if you get on to them and ask them to stop the NHS and its cronies from marketing this illegal product? Well, to put it simply - they lie. They even do this to Members of Parliament and the House of Lords – check out Hansard and the number of times the Fluoride Mafia in both Houses quote the MHRA and its false information on fluoride.

So not only do they mislead us, the despised and detestable common yokels, but they even do so to our rulers as well. That's well dodgy, that is.

Dental Milk is an unlicensed – and therefore illegal - medicinal product.

Two – it is prohibited under EU law, and a criminal offence under English law, to claim that any food has a medicinal property. That includes any ingredient used to make that food.

Just because fluoride is listed by the scientifically illiterate idiots in the EU Commission as a 'mineral' when added to foods, that does NOT mean that it's then OK to claim that any food to which it has been deliberately added cures some disease.

Milk is a food; Dental Milk is a medicine; the fluoride is there with the intent to medicate the kids; End of story.

Non-entry of the Food Police

Three – the Food Standards Agency (FSA) runs a Food Crimes Unit. The job of these Food Police is to jump down hard on all forms of food crime in general. This includes that bit about it being an offence to make a medicinal claim for a food.

And in my recent correspondence the Food Crimes Unit – specifically its in-house Mr. Gray – has agreed that the claim that fluoridated milk prevents tooth decay does indeed appear to be a prohibited claim.

There, that's all fairly clear, I hope? So now, what does the Food Crimes Unit do when faced with my formal complaint that the proponents of 'Dental Milk' appear to be committing a criminal offence by promoting it to parents, Councillors and other assorted interested parties as being capable of preventing tooth decay?

Why, it refers me (and I'm not joking here) to those helpful folk at Public Health England.

That's right – they want me to go cap-in-hand to the very organisation that is responsible for promoting the dodgy product to those same assorted interested parties in the first place!

Sort it out yourself, Matey - we're busy!

If you're having difficulty grasping what's going on here, let me use an analogy. Suppose you're quietly walking down the path on your way home, minding your own business, no trouble to anyone.

Suddenly, you're accosted by a clearly drugged-out psychotic youth brandishing a sharp object and demanding your portable goods and assets, or else.

You comply, survive the incident, then wend your shaky way to Plod's Headquarters to tell your tale. You really would appreciate a little co-operative support and maybe even some sort of remedial action against your mugger, preferably of the 'painful lessons learned.' variety.

And after due consideration, Plod says. “Oh yes, that'll be Raymond again. We know about Raymond, he's like that. Here's his address, just pop round and have a quick word with him. Oh, and shut the door behind you – we've got other more important things to attend to here!”

***************************************************

'Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'
(Juvenal - But who will guard the guards themselves?)

The collapse of the rule of law.

Would this be a good response, do you think? After all, what's the point of having Police if they fail to do the policing thing?

Would they treat your local MP is the same way, do you imagine?

Or is there really one law for the important and quite another for those unimportant ordinary folk, like us, who simply bring too many irritating and trivial complaints against perverts and bureaucrats, and other assorted riff-raff?

So the question is, then, who polices the police? Or in this case, who do we have to turn to when the official Regulators, charged with enforcing the laws of the land against all and sundry, simply turn their backs and tell us to piss off and stop bothering them with our silly complaints and trivial hurts and irritations?

This happy little gang of accomplices is growing, day by day.

Let's be quite clear about what is happening here now. The official, government-appointed Regulator of medicines, the MHRA, is now colluding with the Department of Health and its Agencies, such as PHA and the FSA, with the NHS, and with local Authority 'health professionals' embedded into our Councils, to promote and permit the supply of a prohibited unlicensed medicine to the general public.

This deranged action targets particularly the youngest members of our communities, who are most vulnerable to fluoride overdose.

So who now is going to bring the MHRA and its accomplices to Court and challenge them to defend their bureaucratic indifference and collusion in a criminal action against the public?

Is this a case of 'If you can't beat them, join them'?

If PHE, the official State body charged with protecting us from dodgy Snake Oil Salesmen is itself one of that happy little band of Dodgy Dealers, and commits a criminal offence in order to promote

its own interests, who is there to bring that organisation back under control?

What do I mean, the PHE has a vested interest in Dental Milk? Remember those swingeing budget cuts to the NHS?

PHE claims, against all the (reliable) contrary evidence, that this ridiculous product is one of the most 'cost-effective' methods of reducing tooth decay. Really?

So, by diverting some of its squeaky budget into dosing school kids with this stuff, it's in line to claw back some of its dental budget, then. That's a vested interest, that is.

And why do I say that this product is 'ridiculous'? Well since milk is the officially recommended antidote to chronic fluoride poisoning . . . . ! Look, how much more do I have to explain here?

A step too far

PHE's record of getting things hopelessly wrong is becoming legendary – tobacco, alcohol, all those drugs that have had to be recalled, the list just goes on.

To find that it, along with several other complicit Agencies and professionals, is now able to commit a serious criminal offence with apparent impunity is a measure too far.

If Parliament makes rules that prohibit an action, then anyone, without exception and without regard to their position, must be subject to the same constraints as the rest of us.

Allowing the health sector to become polluted by this form of corruption brings the entire House of Cards that is the health service into disrepute.

If the Regulator refuses to regulate, just where will this charade of governance lead us in future?

There's always the Ombudsman – err, you're joking, right?

I wrote to the Parliamentary Ombudsman back in February 2010, challenging his decision not to take action against the MHRA for

exercising improper 'discretion' over its refusal to classify fluoridated water as a medicinal product.

I provided conclusive legal rulings that showed that evidence that the MHRA had no such authority. And my complaint was simply ignored.

It seems that once we are classed as mere 'activists' our voices are forever smothered (the opinions of the 'passivists' are of course, greatly treasured by The Establishment, because they don't rock any boats.)

Protecting vested interests, yet invulnerable to censure

So it seems we have no recourse to justice, there is no protection from the bizarre whims and fancies of PHE and its minions for those at the bottom of the heap. Regulators are there to protect the interests of those who pay up for their licenses.

Our Regulatory Police – MHRA, PHE, FSA – are all invulnerable to censure, whatever extreme forms of behaviour they may engage in.

The occasional foibles of those privileged fee-paying corporate Members of the exclusive Club Pharma are safe within the protected walls of governmental bureaucracy.

Any questionable activities can be disregarded as mere bagatelles, to be smilingly tolerated provided they don't cause too much unrest amongst the natives.

The tip of an unstable Regulatory Iceberg

Well, this Native is well upset! It remains to be seen how many others in my little tribe might just find this situation not exactly to their liking, too. We may be mere mice, but if we gnaw away long enough, even the toughest walls can get seriously weakened and come tumbling down.

You will, I hope, find this situation a little bit alarming. After all, if these Regulator Johnnies can get away with criminal misbehaviour and the deception of Parliament itself, just how much further will they be allowed to intrude into our lives with their dodgy ways and contemptuous behaviour?

This is only one aspect of a huge world-wide problem. Off-label prescription of vaccines? It happens. (That Brazilian Zika incident, right now, for example). Recognition of dodgy or even downright dangerous drugs by accepting fraudulent data submitted by Big Pharma? You'd better believe it. Most medical research results are wrong (and a lot of them are downright fraud and fake.)

Illegal clinical trials on non-consenting members of the public, even? Yep - I'll tell you about that shortly.

Just how far will these apparently immune Civil Servants and their unaccountable 'officers' be allowed to go before they are stopped?

Get out there and make a lot of noise.

Blackpool is just the latest target, but the kids in St. Helens, not far up the road from Blackpool, have been drinking this Dental Milk rubbish for twenty years, and they have exactly the same amount of tooth decay as the kids in Blackpool – IT DOESN'T WORK, YOU IDIOTS!

So if you're in a location where this charade is being played out, then get onto your local MP and demand that government agencies be subjected to the same laws as we – and MPs – are.

And since fluoridated water is also an unlicensed medicinal water, you people in Bedford should be sitting up and taking notice too. The legal basis for fluoridating water is far more shaky than the MHRA and its associated criminals try to persuade you.

If we don't stop this rot now, then things may change unexpectedly, especially after the Referendum in June. Whatever you may think about the Brussels Bureaucracy, the European Court of Justice is the only and last resort currently available to us, the common folk, to keep the excesses of Government under control

Unlike the toothless passivists amongst us, we activist mice have teeth that keep growing back – that should prove a little alarming for the brainless dental profession and its unhealthy obsession with fluoride!

_____________________________________________________