UKCAF website

Go to content

Main menu:

"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, 1989)

23rd March 2016


Lost track of those older stories from UKCAF?

Don't worry, they're still here! Due to restructuring of this site, all those favourite files are now available by clicking on the 'Documents' Tab and its sub-folders, in the Menu at the top of the page. And there are more under the 'Doug's Blog' Tab too.


Don't get carried away by 'Peer Review'

Not all published science is good science. Watch out for defects that will leave you vulnerable in debate.

Recent News
Important stories we've run that you may have missed.

What's up with Severn Trent's Water? Companies must move quickly to resolve uncertainty.

The new Thalidomide? Is the real cause of the Brazilian deformed baby epidemic another case of a misused vaccine?

The Circus is Back in Town! It's a criminal offence to claim that any food has a therapeutic property, so we've referred the 'Dental Milk' issue in Blackpool to the National Food Crime Unit.

Stampede! The claim that Calgary's kids teeth are getting worse is based on false evidence.

Two very different campaigns. Anti-fluoridation campaigns are being fought in Wakefield, UK and in Oz,

Panorama, on 'The Zika Baby Crisis' - a travesty of scientific reporting

The 'Smoking Gun' Exposure of infants to passive smoke in the home doubles their risk of bad teeth later. The 'disadvantaged children' tear-jerker used to promote fluoridation is a scientific hoax.

The scientific literature is in a mess. Most published medical research results are false. Scary, that. Two thirds of professional scientists admit to knowing someone who has fabricated their research results, often as the result of pressure to write what their masters demand, rather than simply tell the truth.

(Curiously, a far smaller proportion will admit to suffering from such bad behaviour or bias themselves!)

Partly it's the 'publish or perish' mentality, but some are simply so convinced of their preconceptions that they refuse to accept evidence that indicates they may have been wrong all along. So they look for evidence that conforms their beliefs – a psychological defect that is known as 'confirmation bias', and one which riddles many areas of science.

In the fluoridation confrontation, such behaviour has led to the establishment of a permanent Combat Zone in which conflicting points of view can be attacked, regardless of the reliability of the science that underlies them. The latest skirmish between Stephen Peckham and Public Health England is a perfect example. The ghastly Science Media Centre immediately drafted in reliable old science hacks to challenge Peckham's paper, without actually providing any information on why it should be considered to be 'wrong'.

One only has to publish something that the other side regards as a threat to its own point of view, and the mud starts to fly. The fact that a paper has been published in a Journal is no guarantee that it is sound – just look at the bad science published by notably pro-fluoridation dental health journals, for example. Journals are businesses, not charities, and charge hefty 'processing fees' on submissions to their Editorial Boards. Some simply pander to vanity publishing – getting one's name in print, and to Hell with quality! And the standard of peer review in some (if not many) can be abysmal.

What really is beginning to count is post-publication peer review – the dissection of published papers to expose their weaknesses and bias. Yes, the Internet is a great place to dig out information – but the quality of information out there runs from brilliantly carried out studies to absolute rubbish.

Unless you're experienced in research, you can easily be fooled, especially if you're looking for material that confirms what you believe already. What – you wouldn't dream of doing that? Believe me, you do! We tell ourselves stories all the time, and once adopted they are devilishly hard to abandon.

So when any new paper is published on fluoridation, we have to be absolutely dispassionate about how we accept it. Bad science is bad Public Relations, especially if it is promoted to shore up some uncertain concept that we would like to believe. I've seen this over and over, and complained loudly – to very little effect, of course – when the anti-fluoridation side gets things wrong.

The CDC data of dental fluorosis was a scam, yet even our most vociferous generals refused to admit they were wrong and went along with it. So too was the story that the Israeli Court had banned fluoridation. So I have had to repeatedly explain to baffled correspondents why they should not believe everything they read, no matter where it comes from.

Having to correct bad science is depressing, yet if it's allowed to become part of the framework of the anti-fluoridation movement, we all suffer the consequences – sooner or later someone on the other side is going to pay some hack to dismember it anyway.

Watch out for dodgy research, and ignore it in debate. That way, those who claim to be scientists will be forced to clean up their own acts, or face the consequences of public disdain and contempt later.

For a recent example CLICK HERE


Is this really evidence-based medicine?

"The evidence
suggests fluoridated milk may be beneficial to schoolchildren . . . The evidence was considered to be low quality due to the lack of relevant studies, the risk of bias in the identified [single] study and concerns over the applicability of the results to different settings and populations". (My emphasis added)

Yeung et al(2015) Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries.

Blackpool's 'Dental Milk' saga is just the tip of a disfunctional Health Regulatory System that must be reformed.

So when the government's official Regulators refuse to perform their statutory functions, just who do we turn to for Justice?

I've written extensively on the Blackpool School Milk Farce, which has been trundling along for the past three years without any persons of common or garden sense - apart from Councillor Tony Williams and his little groups of 'activists' - showing the least inclination to be bothered by the criminal promotion of this product to parents.

Obstructing public access to Councillors.

Recently my email to Tony on this contentious subject was actually blacklisted by Blackpool Council's mail server. That's right - someone appears to have decided that information of a sensitive and potentially disturbing nature sent to an elected Member of a Council needed to be screened and, if it came from me, rejected.

Whether there was a human agency involved (well, of course, there must have been, at some stage anyway) or this was because someone decided that I am a such a disreputable source of information that all loyal Councillors need to be automatically protected from my wicked advice is entirely unclear.

But it seems that it all came right in the end. After a few cunning emails sneaked through, sent both openly from me and anonymously, it looks as though some sensitive soul somewhere within the Council's heirarchy may just have have got a little twitchy and eased off the filtering - if that's what it was, of course!

Don't talk to us, we're too important, we are!

But now I hear that even parents of children at Blackpool's schools are being forbidden to speak about this Dental Milk scam to members of the Council's Public Health team.

One mother emails to tell us that:
Just been on hold to Blackpool Borough council who have informed me I cannot speak to anyone in the public health team? I can only email.

Yes, well, we've all had that run-around, whenever we start to turn over a few stones in these scams and travesties, and something nasty tries to wriggle away out of sight.

So that's what's going down there now, then? The very same legal guardians of the children who may receive this illegal medicinal food are apparently being prevented from engaging in free and unfettered discussion with those who would impose this ridiculous product on their children.

A bit like Parliamentary Questions, really, then - doesn't matter what answer is given to inconvenient questions, just as long as
something is said, no matter how daft. Box ticked, end of problem!

Not that this aloof secrecy would actually clear things up at all, of course, these same Public Health 'experts' being so woefully ignorant of both medical (and food) law and of even the simplest concepts of medical science and toxicology.

But it's the principle of free exchange of medical information that's at stake here (Oh damn! Of course - it's NOT a medicine, stupid me! So that's how they get around it, then.)

Whatever happened to public consultation, to providing complete, and above all, balanced information that allow parents to provide fully informed consent?

But then the unpleasant reality barges in again, and we remember that, as far as these Shylocks are concerned, we're not dealing with real medicine at all - the MHRA says so, so there!. So none of these irritating constraints actually apply. As Mr..Punch always said when bashing poor Judy around, "
That's the way to do it!"

The cavalry are coming - but then, perhaps they're not.

I mentioned recently that I referred the claim that Dental Milk prevents tooth decay to the Food Standards Agency's 'Food Crimes Unit', since they are the ones who have the mandatory responsibility to prevent the sale or marketing of all illegal foods.

Dental Milk is an illegal food because it has been dosed with fluoride with the specific intent to prevent the disease of tooth decay, and is promoted for that

precise purpose. Claiming that it does just that is a criminal offence in English law, and our valiant Food Crimes Unit is ready to jump in there and feel a few collars.

Well - it is, isn't it? Err - no, actually.

The way that our brave and heroic Food Crimes Unit proposes to put a stop to this little scam is so blindingly simple that I'm still trying to get my head around it's brilliant, if contorted, logic. For our Food Police have, most helpfully, refered me right back to Public Health England!

Those of you who have been following this little saga will be aware that this is the very same gang of villains who have been illegally promoting this Snake Oil Remedy to Councillors and parents from the very start of the action!

Stitched up.

So now we have what is surely the most comprehensive stitch-up in medical fraud in years. A small but immovably fanatical brotherhood of Fluoride pushers, based not at all loosely on the British Fluoridation Society, whispers their drivelling nonsense about fluoride to Parliament. This then passes idiot laws to allow fluoridation even when they are incompatible with existing legislation on both medicines and food.

That's well dodgy, that it - if they do this then how can you be sure they don't do it with other dodgy substances and fake products as well? Really sure? Really
REALLY sure? Ah - right.

Then the Regulator of medicines, the MHRA, conspires with government to keep the fact that fluoridated water is actually a medicine well out of the public's awareness. That's how they manage to improperly exempt both fluoridated water and milk from regulation as medicines, which would put them both straight out of circulation.

As a part of the scam, the same scientific illiterates also persuaded the Brussels Bureaucrats that fluoride is a mineral (in the sense of being an essential substance, without which we would all undoubtedly perish from rotting gums), against all common sense and scientific fact. (
Got to be good for you, Squire - fluoride's natural, that is!) (Damn! That's aniother illegal claim too!)

That little Contnental Adventure allowed the Food Safety Agency to ignore complaints that fluoridated milk is an illegal medicinal food, because fluoride, as everyone knows, is a mineral, not a medicine (MHRA says so) so Dental Milk is still a food then, so that's OK then. (No it's not! That criminal offence of claiming a food prevents a disease - remember that then?)

Our happy band of conspirators then scuttled off to the Department of Health, whose policy-wise but entirely deranged bean-counters briefed their scientifically illiterate Departmental Ministers on the inestimable benefits of fluoride. (Ah well - you learn to spot these tricky circular arguments after a time, when they're set out that simply.)

This little scam then spured the NHS to cosy up with the sycophantic Agencies, the Food Standards Agency and Public Health England, to mount a determined Terorist Action Plan to make sure that every child in the country is equal.

That means they intend and plan that every child shall be equally exposed to this absurd 'mineral' as early as possible in their vulnerable young existences. And both Agencies busily collude to sell their farago of myths and inventions to the public - that's you, me and the people of Blackpool, among others.

So now, the entire Establishment has got this travesty of 'evidence- based dental health' sewn tightly into a sticky little ball. We, the public have no access to justice, because quite simply, there isn't any left to go around.

There is. of course, only one way to beat this - we have to make noise, LOTS of noise, over the complete eradication of our human right to protect our children from this arbitrary and extreme form of State-imposed medical quackery.

Parents hold the key to breaking this strangle-hold - so just tell those silly school heads how things are going to be in future, and make damned sure that your MPs are dragged, screaming and kicking if necessary, into the action.

For a more detailed commentry on the implications of this appalling travesty of 'evidence-based science' which now corrupts the entire British Health Regulatory system,


Yeah, right on!



Back to content | Back to main menu