"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)
16th February 2015
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.
Lies, damned lies, and dental statistics. We have a real Major Incident here, and not just at a few hospitals -
NHS oral health surveys are desperately flawed, but Public Health England carries on regardess. For our take on rampant rampant statistical malpractice, see BELOW. and for a closer look CLICK HERE
Bolton targeted in latest fluoride offensive. After its opening salvo in Hull last month, PHE has now shifted its attack to Bolton. And once again it's lying to Councillors, in its latest attempt to justify its fluoride mania. Today's reports are al lionked, so read all about it BELOW
WHAT'S GOING ON?
Ten infants found with tooth decay in Hull!
PHE calls in the Fluoridation Heavy Mob
15th February 2015
The three year olds in Hull are really, really weird! They must be - Public Health England's weird calculations can only be explained by weird kids.
In their survey of these strange children, published in 2013. they examined an impressive 66 out of these teeming 3,469 pre-school Mixed Infants.
Then they announced that 15.4% of 3 year olds in Hull have bad teeth. So how did they work out that amazingly precise proportion then?
Well, the only explanation appears to be that they looked at how many of those sixty six kids in their study did have bad teeth, and from them they worked out what proportion of the entire population of three year olds would be dentally challenged.
Simple enough, surely - so that would be eight, then?
Well no - 15.4% of 66 is - umm - ten and a bit, maybe eleven. I can't tie it down exactly beause kids, in my family at least, tend to come in whole numbers. Perhaps our statisticians were just having one of those Senior Moments, a slight warp of the brain, perhaps?
Surely no-one would rely on only ten kids to work out what's happening in an entire City? Yep- that's PHE for you.
So I checked out the figures for the East Riding of Yorkshire - almost identical number of 3 year olds and 63 kids examined this time. Public Health England says that 3.9% had bad teeth. Working backwards to those 63 kids, that’s two and a half of them with bad teeth.
Two and a HALF? Oh, come on!
Once again the entire survey is riddled with hopelessly unreliable data. It seems that these people are incapable of handling even the simplest of numbers - yet they are trying to get their befuddled minds and fumbling hands on our kids teeth.
Are Councillors in Hull really to believe that the state of dental decay in almost three and a half thousand of their kids can be reliably predicted by looking at only 66 of them? (So what about the rest, then?)
And is it really credible that the severity of dental decay in all those teeming Mixed Infants can be estimated by looking at TEN of them? (Or maybe in eight, or even eleven of them. We'll never know.)
That is plain ridiculous.
The official methodology for these National Survey states that A minimum sample size of 200 examined children is required per LA and per PCT, from a minimum of 20 child care sites. This is unlikely to produce a sufficiently large sample to facilitate local service planning, in which case larger samples will be required.
Yet in this survey they only looked at that many in five of the twenty one Lower Tier Local Authority Areas in the Yorkshire and the Humber region. Most samples were well below that threshold, and they only got 66 from Hull. That’s nowhere near that magic minimum number of 200.
(And why did they tell us that they needed at least 250 for an identical survey of 5 year olds - have the rules changed again? I'm just curious, that's all.)
We’ve also been warned that looking at ony 200 (or even 250) kids is still far too few to decide on ‘local service planning’.
How many is 'enough' for introducing or changing a health intervention policy in a Local Authority area? Probably around 1000, but PHE is too shy to tell us.
Since there is not a single Local Authoity Area in all England where they looked at the minimum 1000 kids for deciding on a local intervention policy, any fluoridation intervention based on tbe results of this survey could only be supported at a regional level.
Not that it would be proper anyway; if this is how they treat inconvenient data, how can we be sure they're not fixing the figures on those elusive 'benefits' as well? (In fact they are, but I'll leave that for next time.)
Using this survey to try it on in any single city or Lower Teir Local Authority area in the whole of England is completely out of order, and in their timid ittle hearts they really know this, too!
So how does PHE justify using such ridiculous statistics to push fluoridation on Hull? This is a ‘local service planning’ decision if ever there was one, and 66 kids won't give the level of reliability that they admit is needed for State intervention.
Someone’s being extremely creative with the facts here, and such people are too dangerous to let out into the health sector.
If they can’t handle ‘difficult’ numbers, how safe are they likely to be when they’re trying to enforce mass medication on the entire population, and not just these dentally defective infants?
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,
HOT STUFF : WHAT'S GOING ON
- RIGHT NOW?
BOLTON NEXT IN LINE FOR THE PHE TREATMENT
New target - same old tricks!
Doug Cross 31st January 2015
Now we hear that a terrifying proportion of the kids in Bolton have rotten teeth. Is it true? Well - possibly; or on the other hand, possibly not! Our old friends at Public Health England (PHE) are up to their new tricks again: you'd think they would have tried to learn from past mistakes, wouldn't you? (Don't answer that!)
But are Bolton's kids' teeth really that bad? Quite simply, we don't know - and neither does PHE, not really. But they're not THAT much different to those of most other kids in the North West. Once again, PHE is relying on those dodgy National Statistics on tooth decay to scare the Councillors.
After 26 years of frustration they deperately need a precedent - someone to let them get at the Holy Grail of the English tooth mechanics, a brand new, precedent-setting Water Fluoridation Project! And once again they're trying to pull the wool!
On beng a little economical with the truth
I've said already that we're faced with statistical fraud on an unprecedented scale here. PHE is trying it on in Hull, and now it's got Bolton in its sights. But as in Hull (and in 55% of all Lower Tier Local Authority (LA) Areas across the entire country) the NHS data collectors didn't look at enough kids to get statistically reliable results. And that really is the sort of information that is essential before we let them start fiddling around putting nasty chemicals into the public water supply.
In the NHS's survey of 5 year olds in 2012, PHE's Tooth Monitors failed to examine enough kids in 15 out of the 39 Local Authority areas in the NW to make any valid estimates of average tooth decay - how many kids had bad teeth and how bad the 'average' kid's teeth are. Bolton just scraped through with the minimum number. So what proportion of its kids had tooth decay? Somewhere between one third and one half - just like most other areas. So it's not really that special after all, then.
The Law of Averages - or blinding the people with science.
In fact, in every area in the North West, more kids had perfectly good teeth than had some - or even any - bad ones. Amongst those unfortunates who did have bad teeth, most had very little decay, and just a few had lots.
That average number of decayed teeth that is supposed to describe the Bolton kids' teeth, 1-85? It's just a guess, and barely an informed one either. PHE chooses the 'mean' value to suggest that the 'average' kid has some tooth decay - it really get's Councillors hett up every time! And it's all a big bluff - real 'blind 'em with science!' nonsense.
The 'real' average (the mean value) of teeth decay in Bolton is somewhere between 1.5 and 2.2 - but that doesn't mean that every kid has one or two bad teeth (hardly any have exactly 1.85 bad teeth, that would be silly!)
As I said, their own figures admit that most kids have really got perfectly good teeth. So the 'average' kid on the block - the one in the middle - ( the 'median' of the statisticians) doesn't have any decay at all. Not that clear from PHE's dire warnings, is it?
What're we gonna do now?
And when it comes to actually deciding what to do about those bad teeth that are around, to decide how to get to grips with them, PHE needs information on decay rates from many more kids than it got from just working out with these average figures. And this is where the incompetence of the NHS becomes crucial.
In not a single area in the North West, from Cheshire up to almost Carlisle, did the NHS Survey look at emough kids who actually did have bad teeth for PHE to make any reliable decision on dental policy in any specific LA area.
Never mind Bolton - they had to lump the whole lot together to invent a new policy for the entire North West Region.
'One-size-fits-all' medication for the masses
That's right - they had to combine all of the numbers from the entire 39 LA areasin the NW together to get enough information to let them decide what to do. And that is just plain absurd. What's works for the kids here in South Lakeland is likely to be entirely different to what's needed in Liverpool. One size medication definitely doesn't fit all!
The whole charade is designed for one thing only - to create a precedent to end the stalemate and start getting fluoride into public water supplies, wherever they can fool enough folk with statistics to persuade their Councillors to let them poison their kids.
Does it work? If you use the statistics correctly, then you'll see that, after years of fluoridation, the proportion of kids with tooth decay in Allerdale and Copeland is not really different from those in Bolton. How does PHE deal with that then? (Answer on the back of a postage stamp, please.)
"It's mass medication, stupid!"
So just remember this - in the decades that people have been trying to stop this parody of public health, they've got nowhere by arguing science and law. The one thing that's causing the fluoride pushers real grief is the swelling rejection of mass medication, in communities around the entire world.
And Councils are right in there, at the heart of it, rallying support against it from the people whom they are elected to protect. We know - they've been listening to us and what we - and now real experts like David Shaw - have told them about medical law and human rights.
It's working, and my commentaries on what the law regards as a medicine have been enormously important to lawyers helping to bring that simple, down-to-earth challenge on behalf of the defiant people in the streets.
So go with it. Fluoridation is dying even if, like the proverbial dinosaur, it doesn't yet realise it's been dealt a fatal blow and is bleeding to death. Don't let them get that precedent, their cherished Holy Grail. It's a poisoned chalice, and they know it, deep in their fearful little hearts. They just can't bear to admit it yet!
Public Health England abandons plan to fluoridate Southampton's water. 3rd November 2014
It's official - Southampton is off the hook as far as fluoridation is concenred. But PHE hasn’t any intention of ending its controversial policy - this is just a strategic withdrawal. On this occasion, public opinion has won - but watch for the next attempt to revive the battle elsewhere!
And now it's Hull's turn to host 'the kids with the rotten teeth!' 20th January 2015.
But this time, the fluoride pushers have really fouled up. In fact the teeth of Hull's 5 year olds can't be compared with those of kids in the rest of the region - they've cheated in The Numbers Game again! So why does PHE continue this frantic charade? It's another health scam, of course.
For a summary, click HERE, and a detailed breakdown, click HERE
It's Independence Day! 20th January 2014 The last legal loophole that could be claimed to allow the continued imposition of water fluoridation in the European Community finally slammed shut today. The only remaining excuse that the British and Irish governments can use to prop up their policy of illegal mass medication was that this product is not a medicine but a food, Now the EC had finally shut that door in their faces. For more, click HERE
Update on ‘Independence Day!’ 25 January 2014 . For the record, Annex II of EC Regulation 1925/2006 has now been replaced by Annex III of Regulation 1170/2009. There is no change - sodium and potassium fluorides are STILL the only authorised sources for added fluoride in food preparation in foods (and it's still stupid!).