UKCAF website

UK Councils Against Fluoridation

6th November 2009

The Lytle S Adams Memorial Award

CLICK HERE to
nominate an Expert for this
prestigious new Award

News and analysis of
recent developments
on Water Fluoridation

Terms of use of information
on this web site

WHISTLE-BLOWERS
Got some inside information on fluoride fraud? Here's how to pass it on anonymously
CLICK HERE

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Home Secretary in a spin over
inconvenient expert advice.

Sacking advisers whose advice is politically embarrassing is not the way to manage the nation's health.

But Home Secretary Alan Johnson's dismissal of his most expert adviser on drugs is not the only time that he has ignored
scientific evidence.

Doug Cross, 6th November 2009

The Government’s shambolic policies on the misuse of illegal substances have come home to roost. Last week the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, dismissed Professor David Nutt from his post as Chairman of the Government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This is only the most recent example of the Government’s dangerously irrational attitude to the regulation of potentially hazardous chemicals.

Professor Nutt had committing the unpardonable political sin, not of ‘campaigning’ as Johnson alleged, but of simply disagreeing with the Home Secretary over the need to reclassify cannabis as a more risky drug than alcohol or tobacco. Mr Johnson’s pig-headed attitude is entirely consistent with his refusal to order the Medicines Regulator, the MHRA, to subject another illegal substance, fluorosilicic acid, to full medical regulation, as the law requires.

In the case of cannabis, he considers himself better able to decide on the severity of the risks of this illegal substance to the public than the country’s leading scientific authority. But in the past he was presented with equally reputable scientific advice that unavoidable fluoride exposure should be brought under control, and its use regulated as a medicine.

Despite clear evidence of the harm that it causes, he refused to accept that advice, and thousands of children are damaged each year as a result. Instead he stubbornly turned for guidance to the Establishment’s discredited ‘expert advisers’, who continue to endorse this discredited practice. Last year he ordered a quadrupling of the number of people in England who are to be unavoidably exposed to this unregulated toxic substance.

Only last week the bogus claim that children in the city of Southampton had ‘some of the worst teeth in the country’were finally exposed. The Health Authority had used fraudulent statistics in its attempt to mislead Councillors into supporting the Government’s irrational policy on adding fluorosilicic acid to drinking water.

Igoring reputable scientific advice against the use of this unlicensed substance, it relied on advisers from the British Fluoridation Society and the National Fluoride Information Centre to give its policy spurious authority and credence.

The dismissal of Professor Nutt and this latest revelation of the Establishment’s scientific fraud in Southampton reveals just how deeply political interference with drug regulation in Britain has descended into black farce. Such political chicanery cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with harshly. If public servants, even at the highest levels, are seen to place political policy before sound scientific advice then they must be replaced.

Incredibly, not a single serving Secretary of State for Health in the last twenty years has had any medical expertise whatsoever, and only one had even a basic scientific background (Margaret Beckett MP, a former metallurgist!).

If senior politicians feel competent to dismiss even the most expert scientific opinion, then they must be challenged to demonstrate their own greater technical competence. If they cannot do this, then they should either shut up and take the advice of superior authorities or resign. We cannot allow the management of the public’s health to remain in the hands of fools and charlatans.

It is madness to allow scientifically illiterate politicians
to dictate the health of the nation.

CLICK HERE
for more

__________________________________________________________________________________________

6th October 2009

In the 'public interest', or merely of interest to the public?

The row over the use of propaganda in public consultation in the EU and Member States

The EC faces a legal challenge to its misuse of taxpayers' money to pay for propaganda aimed at influencing this week's Irish referendum on Lisbon. But taxpayers' money is still used to pay for pro-fluoridation propaganda, aimed at influencing public opinion, not only in the Republic of Ireland but in the UK as well.

This immoral diversion of public funds must stop. It's time for a full Public Inquiry into the public sector's obsession with water fluoridation.

Doug Cross

The scandal over the misuse of public funds to promote a ‘YES’ vote in the Irish Referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty has been surprisingly muted, despite the fact that it could result in the reversal of the vote on Constitutional grounds.

But the issue raised by this misuse of public funds goes far beyond this specific vote in Ireland. It is entirely similar to the way in which taxpayers’ money is also diverted from the UK’s National Health Service budget to influence public opinion in the promotion of water fluoridation.

As in Ireland, the pro-fluoridation propaganda issued by the government and its fluoride outlets such as the British Fluoridation Society (BFS) and the National Fluoride Information Centre (NFIC) is paid for substantially from public funds. The truculent refusal of EU Commissioners to face up to the clear breach of EU medicines legislation over the continued use of unlicensed fluoridation chemicals affects both Irish and UK water consumers, and lends spurious authority to these two national governments when they are challenged over the practice.

So when the EU is accused of using taxpayers’ money to promote its own political ambitions in one Member State, there is a very real risk that it will employ similar tactics to secure support for any policy that may be unwelcome to the public in any other Member State.

And that is why this scandal in Ireland is relevant to the fluoridation controversy. This is precisely the technique that has been employed by the British government and its agent, the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) over the contemptuous rejection of the unwelcome results of the local poll on fluoridation in Southampton, UK.

In this week's issue we look at the implications of the manipulation of Irish public opinion by the EU and the Irish Government to ensure that they get the 'right' result on the Lisbon Treaty, and ask how far will corrupt States and a collaborating European Parliament go to force the public to vote the way they want in any polls or referenda, such as the recent one on fluoridation in Southampton?

LEGAL PROHIBITION ON PUBLIC SECTOR INTERFERENCE IN IRISH REFERENDA -
The Judges' decisions in the McKenna Judgment of 1995

"No branch of the government is entitled to use taxpayers’ monies from the Central Fund to interfere with the democratic process either as to the voting process or as to the campaign prior to the vote.”
(Justice Denham, J.)

“The use by the Government of public funds to fund a campaign designed to influence the voters in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote is an interference with the democratic process for the amendment of the Constitution and infringes the concept of equality which is fundamental to the democratic nature of the State... “
(Chief Justice Hamilton)

To read our Commentary on the EU's illegal
intervention in Irish referenda

CLICK HERE

__________________________________________________________________________________________

19th September 2009

Look out - the lawyers have arrived!

Back in March we warned that the lawyers were about to get involved in the fluoridation controversy. Now they are here, and the Government's duplicity is under scrutiny, with a Judicial Review of the law on public consultation.

When Southampton resident Geraldine Milner was awarded State legal aid to challenge the autocratic rejection of public opinion against fluoridation in the City of Southampton, pro-fluoride advocates in the UK were brought up sharply against reality. The first legal challenge of any aspect of water fluoridation to come before a Judge since Lord Jauncy effectively banished fluoridation from Scotland twenty six years ago has shocked the pro-fluoride Establishment to its foundations.

Fluoride pushers across the country are worried. The plan to fluoridate the English North-West has stopped dead in its tracks. Even in long-fluoridated areas of the country the Water Companies are nervously waiting to see what the Judge has to say about the Government's undercover attempt to remove the hazards of uncertain public opinion from public health policy-making.

It will be several months yet before we get the verdict, but behind the scenes there are signs that the Department of Health may be preparing a face-saving exit strategy. Only a few days ago the North West Strategic Health Authority announced that it is concerned that the costs of the proposed northern scheme are likely to be rather more than it had expected - £200 million. Ouch!

But quite why this is regarded as such a shocking revelation is difficult to understand We informed the NWSHA that it would cost precisely that amount two years ago, and we got it directly from the Water Company!

Our commentary on the issues that will form the basis of the Judicial Review are published here today - you will be surprised at just what has been going on behind the scenes!

Inadmissible evidence:
how Parliament's wishes were disregarded

CLICK HERE

__________________________________________________________________________________________

19th September 2009

European Court ruling starts to bite.

“Section 130 defines ‘medicinal product’ and I am satisfied that fluoride in whatever form it is ultimately purchased by the respondents falls within that definition.” *

The potential impact of the European Court of Justice ruling that functional drinks must be regulated as medicines is starting to alarm exporters of processed foods to the EC. Inevitably, fluoridation apologists are trying to dismiss the warning - but once the legal challenges start to reach the Courts they will force the fluoride supporters to accept that their quack remedy must not be used to prepare food for human consumption.

* Lord Jauncy, 1983, on the application of the Medicines Act 1968 to fluoridated water.

The full implications of my article outlining the implications of the Warenvertriebs and Orthica case ruling by the European Court of Justice, that I published here in May, are beginning to bite!

With over 6000 downloads already, especially from readers in overseas fluoridated countries, the Australian Trade Commission, Austrade, is urgently seeking clarification about the possibility that the ruling could mean a trade embargo on the export of a wide range of processed foods to the European Community.

Inevitably, there are determined efforts by dental and public health sector advocates of fluoridation to dismiss my conclusions as the ramblings of an 'anti-fluoride activist'. Well, that takes care of the legal argument, then! I guess fifty years as a jobbing scientist and para-legal don't count when you're dealing with real professional dentists.

We 'Activists', of course, do take an active role in looking at the issues that emerge from policies that we find irrational. Does that make us inferior to the fluoride protagonists, who find it easier to play a passive role and accept the relentless propaganda pouring from the scientifically illiterate dental sector? So let's ignore the infantile inuendos and slurs against our personal characters for a moment, and concentrate on facts.

Under EC Law, any product promoted as having medicinal properties MUST be classified, regulated and licensed as a medicine. This applies 'even if the product is generally regarded as a food . . and even if it has no known therapeutic properties under the present state of scientific knowledge'.

And in Scotland, Lord Jauncy made it quite clear back in 1983 that he interpreted the UK law on medicines as applying to any form of fluoride purchased by the consumer.

A product does not need to have pharmacological properties (i.e. to be 'medicinal by function') to be classed as a medicine - simply claiming that fluoridated water prevents tooth decay is enough to render it subject to medicinal law. So fluoridated water is indeed a 'functional drink' - it DOES come under EC medicinal law, and MUST therefore be regarded as a medicine. Everything else I have said in my analysis follows.

All that is needed now is direct legal confirmation that the ruling applies to fluoridated water - either a case before the European Court or a Judicial Review in national law will do. And then of course, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh's forlorn argument that 'EC law does not apply in Australia' (or elsewhere) becomes irrelevant.

Do what you like on your own doorstep, Ms Bligh, but don't expect to be able to keep dumping your contaminated food products on the EC!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

23rd July 2009

Government's National Fluoride
Information Centre is a Sham!

The 'National Fluoride Information Centre' was set up by the British Government in 2004. It was enthusiastically promoted as a reputable 'academically independent centre', and every effort was made to raise its public profile as a new and reliable Centre of Excellence, to persuade the public and the Health Sector that it would become an authoritative official source of information on fluoride.

Five years on, we have the evidence of what we have long suspected - that this 'National Centre' is a sham. It has no full-time staff, and no office. There is no manned Help Line. Instead, it's a tiny locked room in an almost empty building, abandoned as unfit for modern science two years ago.

Unlike your local Health Centre or Tourism Centre, you can't book an appointment, or just drop in - there's no-one there. Even the maintenance staff have never heard of it! So today we show you what this prestigious National Centre of Excellence really is. Then we'll identify who is behind it, and what needs to be done to stop such political manipulation in the future.

For full details and photos

CLICK HERE

Former Secretary of State for Health, the Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, praised the setting up of the Centre - but was he taken in by the hype?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

European Court of Justice ruling on Functional Drinks.

(10th May 2009)

The European Court has ruled that any food that may also have a medicinal function MUST be regulated as a medicine. And that would include fluoridated water!

The MHRA does not have the power to exercise its discretion - it MUST recognise fluoridated water as a medicine and subject it to full pharmacological scrutiny. In the meantime, all fluoridation in the UK and Ireland must stop.

Fluoridated water may not be used for processing food, and all exporting of any food made with it in the UK to other EC states is illegal unless the product has a medicinal licence. So also is the importation into any EC member state of any processed foodstuff that has been made with fluoridated water - so the entire EC market could be closed to firms in fluoridated areas of the USA, Canada Australia, and New Zealand!

Are the highly dubious 'benefits' of fluoridation really worth this price, or is it not time to get rid of this stupid practice world-wide, once and for all?

For more details
CLICK HERE

(Full links to the original Court rulings and commentary are provided at the bottom of the page of the Commentary)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

A referendum in Southampton is
NOT an option.

The arbitrary rejection of public opinion against fluoridation by the South Central Strategic Health Authority took everyone by surprise (except us - but we have grown extremely cynical over the years!) It exposed the utter contempt of the SHA for public opinion, and a rigid determination to stick with the Government's disgraceful fluoridation policy. Every part of the Department of Health, including SHAs, must, by law, adhere to whatever policy Parliament authorises, no matter how deranged and offensive they may be, and it is naive to suppose that it would, or indeed could, do otherwise.

Of course people are justifiably angry that their servants, the politicians, refuse to represent their clearly stated wishes, and they demand to be heard and obeyed. But calling for a Public Referendum, however understandable, is just not an option.

This autocratic, almost fascist, Government will never allow the public to dictate policy, no matter how lunatic and dangerous their existing policies may be. The SHA has dismissed out of hand any idea of rspecting the result of a referendum on fluoridation, and has made it quite clear that it would ignore any such move to provide the public with a democratic voice on the subject.

And on this occasion it is actually right, although for an entirely misguided and perverse reason. The issue is very simple really - the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water is an unlicenced medicinal practice, and as such is illegal.

And the law is quite clear on this specific point - you cannot ask if the public is willing to give its collective permission for anyone to carry out an act that is contrary to law.

Fluoridation is intrinsically unlawful, and no amount of public support for it would change that, unless full legal provisions were made and placed by Parliament into the Statute Book. Given the compexity of such a move, and the current understanding of the toxic risks from fluoride exposure, this is highly improbable.

Agreeing to ask any 'authority', of whatever political persuasion, or even the public itself, to endorse a prohibited act is the first step to mob rule. The only acceptable strategy is to insist that fluoridated water be recognised as a medicinal product that European Court decisions clearly imply, and then regulate it in the same rigorous fashion as all other medicines. Since no medicine may be supplied unless it is in a labelled container, this would instantly remove it from the public water supplies.

This thorny fluoridation issue MUST go before the Courts - as far as the European Court if necessary. That is the only permissible 'referendum' that is acceptable. The ultimate decision on what is permissible lies within the remit of the framework of the law; whilst public opinion can easily be influenced by the psychological manipulation of Government spin-doctors, the law is thankfully rather less liable to such political subversion.

_________________________________________________________________________________________