"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, !989)
The Write Site! - An Invitation to Editors and Publishers
I don't just write about fluoridation, so don't judge my work solely by what you see here. This copy is written for non-technical folk who need to understand some pretty complicated stuff. I'm a professional science writer, and have worked in most areas of publishing. So if you're looking for a pro to put together topical and informative articles, CLICK HERE for more info.
The Exley Appeal - hopes dashed?
Chris Exley’s Crowdfunding Appeal failed. Predictably, perhaps, but it was a last ditch effort to get support for research into one of the most urgent and monstrous problems of our time - how to control the epidemic of dementia sweeping around the developed world.
As I’ve said before (and been hounded by the Science Police for doing so) his research has a direct link with our concerns over fluoridation, so the failure of this appeal is doubly saddening.
All his efforts to get funding for even a modest clinical trial of a process that might just be able to help stop the development of dementia in its tracks were blocked.
He’s already shown that drinking mineral water containing a lot of silica can prevent aluminium from accumulating in the body, so that it never reaches the level that precipitates the cascade of physiological changes that can lead to dementia.
Everyone in the Dementia Industry seems to agree that looking for treatment is the way to go. Yet research into prevention is still just a sideline, apparently more for
appearance's sake than anything more ambitious. Science has now become locked into the straitjacket of ‘consensus’ - anyone who thinks ‘outside the box’ is classed as deranged and has to be excluded from the ranks of the accepted privileged and experts.
Without dissent and innovation, science becomes stale, and locked in the past. We need new approaches if science is to survive.
So if anyone has a million of two to spare, that could make a real difference to the host of people locked into this desperately terrifying condition, get in touch with Chris, and let him know that Doug sent you!
Then maybe someone could find the funds to pay for that other essential support to his research, this time into the Camelford Aluminium Poisoning Incident.
There are quite a few people out here who reluctantly still carry vital information inside them on what aluminium really does to your body and hopes for the future when those delayed effects start to bite.
Chris is still looking for a modest half a million pounds - in the UK alone, it’s what we pay for dementia care every ten minutes. The Crowdfunding Appeal may be closed, but if you would like to help out, you can still subscribe to his research, by going HERE
For background information on this work, read my notes about Chris' appeal HERE
Listen to the Expert
Watch the Alzheimer's video
Don’t mention the F-word; now it’s sugar that’s the problem.
Well, the Mediocrats are at it again! You’ve probably noticed the Dental Police have run a diversionary ploy to distract us from their real agenda. Ignore the fluoride fundamentalists at Public Health England, yelling at us about our ‘fluoride deficiency’. I suggest that instead you take just a little more notice of the TV adverts, as you vegetate your lengthening lives away. Those nice public relations people at Colgate and Palmolive have quietly dropped all mention of Fluoride when they’re pushing the wonders of their marvellous new toothpastes. Fluoride has become a real F-word, at least as far as the industry is concerned.
But DON’T PANIC! Our magnificent new champion, Public Health England, has The Answer. It has come rushing to our rescue on its lumbering old clodhopper, ‘New Research’, to demand an instant Tax on Sugar (no, not Him - the white crunchy stuff that’s shovelled into our food and drinks to make us all fat and self-destructing). Now why does it take such a cunning bunch of mediocre ‘experts’ to work out such a brilliantly irrelevant answer: grab some more money from everyone’s wallets, that way we’ll make everyone equal (or at least, equally impoverished)? The only beneficiary is the State itself, with its sneakily inflated income.
The only folk who might - just - cut down on such consumable garbage are those who can’t afford ‘proper’ food anyway. So with this latest brilliant solution up and running (or at least, lumbering) our underprivileged fat people might just get either a little less fat or a bit more poor. Meanwhile, the privileged fatties will just go on stuffing the same rubbish down their sweet-conditioned gullets and getting even fatter. Fantastic - why didn’t someone else think of that first?
It’s all pseudo-science, of course. How can picking the pockets of everyone help the very poor to change their attitude to sweetened foods, any more that it’ll make their infants’ rotting teeth get better? Academics, being obsessed with such arcane things, have discovered that sugar and fat taxes only work in the real world (a place that few seem to have visited recently) if the tax is huge and there are no alternative products - ‘substitution products’ in the impressivley obscure jargon of pseudo-science- that people can switch over to when things get too expensive.
Stealing money from everyone makes us all equally pissed off. Only the very poor really stop eating and drinking sweet stuff. But with less money to go around, they just stop eating anyway. Is that the answer to Nanny’s financial worries? Exactly!
If you want to look at this in more detail, I suggest you read the following papers first (again, if you can get your head around the jargon):
Han E. and Powell L.M. (2013). Consumption patterns of sugar sweetened beverages in the United States. J Acad Nutr Diet. 113(1): 43–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.016
Lavin R & Timpson H (2013). Exploring the Acceptability of a Tax on Sugar -Sweetened Beverages: Brief Evidence Review. 2013. Applied Health and Wellbeing Partnership, Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University
Michael Meacher MP.
The death of Michael Meacher is a great loss to the community in North Cornwall. When all of government appeared to be determined to sweep the Camelford Poisoning under the carpet, Michael came to hear what the people had to tell him in 2001.
As Minister for Environment, he had been advised by the Department of Health that he would be wasting his time; there was, he was assured, ‘nothing there to find’.
But as he listened to what we were able to tell him about our experiences, he was profoundly shocked by what he heard, and with MP (now Lord) Paul Tyler set up a new Inquiry, with Peter Smith and me as unwelcome 'lay'members of the now notorious 'Lowermoor Sub-Group' of the officially 'independent' Committee on Toxicity.
This was hugely threatening to the Department of Health, since it could have exposed the faceless bureaucrats who had warned of impending catastrophic failure of the planned privatisation of the water industry a few months after the incident.
So our Terms of Reference were hastily amended to prevent us looking into the 'who did what, and why' within government that could have threatened secure careers within the Civil Service.
As so often happens, Michael's hopes were ultimately frustrated, by the frantic manipulations behind the scenes. But by appointing Peter and me to sit on that Committee he ensured that the people’s voices would be heard and respected.
What was planned to be a short investigation lasting only a few months turned into an unprecedented twelve year stint. The panel was forced to listen to new evidence that ‘something nasty’ really had ‘our way come’.
We had many battles and confrontations during our time on theSub-Group, and Michael was always ready to meet us and discuss the progress of the investigation. Ultimately, our resignation from the Sub-Group and refusal to allow our names to be linked to its Final Report, and my and Professor Chris Exley's caustic dismissal of it in the BMJ, accompanied by the serious concern of the West Somerset Coroner during inquests on two of the victims over the way that evidence had been obstructed, ensured that the Report never had the intended reassuring effect within the scientific and medical communities.
Eventually, our community finally got an apology (of sorts) from two insignificant Ministers in the Departments of Health and Environment, but only for the 'distress and anxiety' that 20,000 people had suffered during and after the incident. This cleverly transferred potential blame from identifiable indviduals in the Department to an invulnerable and uncaring establishment, so that was all right then. (But then, one of them was a barrister!)
But whilst the incident has been quietly swept under the carpet, with Michael's help the knowledge about it has become a scientific landmark that is a monument to the 'Ordinary People's' resistance to British injustice. The Final Report was quietly released and then discretely shelved, without the usual fanfare of self-congratulatory flimflam that usually accompanied governmental achievements in concealing inconvenient evidence by relying on pseudo-scientific analysis.
Throughout the entire period, Michael stood up for us and supported us however he could. Without his help the results would have been far less meaningful. We have lost a very good friend, and our sympathy goes out to his family and colleagues who were far closer to him than we. He was an honourable man, and he will be sorely missed.
Michael Meacher, MP. 1939 - 2015
The link between the Camelford Poisoning and fluoridation may seem obscure, but in fact it's of direct concern to all who are aware of the synergistic role of fluoride in aluminium absorption from the human gut.
Leading researchers have stressed the danger of adding fluoride to any water containing even traces of aluminium, and the Camelford incident of 1988 has become a critical (but officially obstructed) source of inconvenient evidence on this potential environmental threat to human health.
Michael's support in our battle with the British Establishment was crucial in providing the world's dementia research community with the vital evidence that was hidden in the bodies of the victims. We owe him a great deal in breaking the stranglehold on this suppressed knowledge.
Lies, damned lies, and dental statistics
The latest Government Report on fluoridation is loaded with misleading statistical analysis of worthless data - and we paid for it!
1st February 2015
Am I the only scientist around who is fascinated by the astonishing statistical sleight-of-hand that the pro-fluoridation bully-boys are using to try to mystify and mislead our Councillors?
I’ve spent many happy days going through the government's latest laboriously fabricated attempt to justify its policy of water fluoridation, released by Public Health England (PHE) in March last year. And I have to say that it’s truly unique - absolutely one of a kind.
This travesty of science is the most ingeniously contrived work of imaginative fiction that I've ever come across, in over 60 years as a practising scientist. It's sole purpose is to persuade Councils and, of course, the scientifically semi-literate dental profession, that only universal water fluoridation will prevent the teeth of our infants from rotting in their gums.
And with the help of our crisis-bound National Health Service, PHE has invented evidence that, so it claims, proves it.
The 'man in the white coat' strikes again
This creative concoction of baffling bullshit is targeted at simple folk, people who are easily impressed by white-coated Experts assuring them that dosing an entire population with a seriously poisonous chemical will cure almost all of the dental diseases known to man - or at the very least, to quite a few of their underprivileged children.
As Mr. Hitler famously reminded us a while back, if you tell a big lie, and tell it often enough, then eventually it will be believed. it's always the Big Lie that wins in the end, and this really is The Big One.
PHE's latest attempt to spread a whiff of spurious respectability on this long-discredited urbanmyth of fluoridation is getting a lot of attention. If it's not exposed now it could cause extraordinary harm to our children - harm that PHE has gone to unprecedented efforts to protect us from noticing until it's too late.
One give-away is that you can't see who actually did which parts of this document - in fact it seems to have no identifiable authors at all. And, like so many government-issued documents, it was not peer-reviewed before publication. This basic test of scientific validity would have caused it to be dumped in the bin by any self-respecting Editor of a quality Professional Journal. (Oh. I forgot - it's a government document, so of course it's not been independently verified. That would be just plain silly.)
So I took a closer look at the 'evidence' contained in this PHE Report. What I found is quite staggering, but I warn you now, it’s not for the faint-hearted! There's enough pseudoscience in there to keep a team of statisticians busy for months (but of course, it already has - they wrote it!) So for the first instalment of what will be quite a series,