UKCAF website

Environment, people or profit?

Doug Cross, 26th February 2009

Why the plan to medicate Queensland's water supplies is important to Councils in Britain (and everywhere else too)

Environment, people, or profit?

The question of what drives the obsession to fluoridate public water supplies has long puzzled those who refuse to accept the rigid dogma held in such high regard by the dental sector. Certainly there is no justification in the scientific and medical literature for a medical intervention that damages up to half of all children exposed to it. Nor is there social or legal support for it - fluoridation is simply a discredited quack remedy that refuses to curl up and die quietly.

Now Queensland's Premier, Anna Bligh has been claimed to have been in discussions with chemical industry companies with a view to forcibly medicating the entire population of the State for which she has responsibility. If this were to be true (and the report appears to be still unconfirmed) then this would result in the administration, in a totally uncontrolled fashion, of a cocktail of pharmaceutical substances that, to say the least, would have unpredictable consequences for the diverse and unwilling human targets of this unavoidable form of medication.

it would also threaten the entire environment into which the unconsumed water, or the far smaller proportion of human wastes, would eventually be discharged. Remember the alarm when scientists discovered that even minute amounts of pharmaceutically active human hormonal substances, normally used in minute doses to prevent conception, were found to be feminising male fish and mammals? Who has ever attempted to test - or even guess at - the impact of polluting the environment with statins, or any of the other drugs that the chemical companies are now alleged want to drip into the public tapwater of Queensland?

Medication without control is unlawful.

Quite apart from the environmental risks, the issue of whether or not a State has the right to medicate its subjects has been the subject of debate for generations. In the EC, the administration of any medicinal substance to a non-consenting person is subject to very strict measures, and this extends to the prohibition of supplying any medicinal substance that is not in a container.

Fluoridated water, whatever the official British and Irish Regulators of medicines may say, IS a medicinal product, and it is an offence to supply it to the public. The same would apply to any attempt to put other pharmaceuticals into the public water supply.

UKCAF has long warned that permitting the State to fluoridate its water supplies heedless of the medico-legal constraints designed to protect personal liberties is the thin edge of the wedge with which further medical outrages could be imposed to enable State control of its citizens.

The chemical industry has kept its head down for years,

apparently hoping that the promotion of the 'benefits' of fluoridation would draw attention away from the equally threatening use of fluorides in toothpastes and other dental products. If the public could be persuaded that fluoride in water is a Good Thing, so the idea went, then its presence in dental products could safely continue without commercial risk to the manufacturers.

Fluoridation - the potential precedent for unlimited State medication

Fluoridation is the precedent that authoritarian States can and will rely on, to enable them to introduce medicinal control of their subjects. Surely, the argument goes, only a perverse fool would deny the elderly who are at risk of defective heart conditions those marvellous statins that could keep them alive for years to come.

But what else might the State wish to add to our daily dose of medicinal water? Substances to control anti-social behaviour, perhaps - anti-social being, of course, a politically defined condition? Maybe this would include activities that are unwelcome to the State - something like attempting to frustrate its benign plans to fluoridate water supplies, even?

Personal choice is a serious obstacle to State-imposed medication, something that has to be curbed for the good of those too ignorant to act in their own best interests. But if this process is allowed to go to far, it is not just the Nanny State in action, but full-blown fascism. If the State engages in such oppressive behaviour, then resistance must come from those who are elected by the people to represent them in the context of their communities - the Local Authorities, Councils or other administrations whose members are aware of, and accountable to, the ordinary person in the street.

It CAN happen here - the legislation already exists.

And for UK Councils at least, if you think that this could not possibly happen here, then think again. Few people are aware that the British Government has already given itself the authority and power to move in this direction, and add other unspecified substances to our water supplies.

Section 88 of the 1991 Water Industry Act contains the generally ignored provision that, should the Secretary of State so decide, he/she is at liberty to ask Parliament to authorise the use of any other substance containing fluorine (not fluoride, notice) - or even, presumably, substances not containing fluorine at all.

The door is wide open for the surreptitious introduction of substances such as that well-known, tried and tested, and oh so thoroughly reliable fluoridated chemical substance, Prozac, and many other drugs into British water supplies when the Government feels that it might be 'beneficial' - although

exactly to whom would, of course, never be explained.

This reported precedent, if true, moves the fluoridation debate into an entirely new realm. In the UK the British Government is engaging in provocative and highly improper manoeuverings in its attempts to expand fluoridation to 40% of the population. The very existence of any and every side-effect is vigorously denied, despite their well-known prevalence in fluoridated areas elsewhere.

Its initial salvo this time round, on the Isle of Man, was roundly defeated by public opposition. In Manchester it has ground to an ignominious halt as Local Authorities challenge its adoption in their own areas and UKCAF challenges fluoridation proponents personally and professionally.

And in the South, Hampshire County Council struck a lethal blow to the Government's ambitions by defying the Chief Dental Officer and carrying out a highly professional public consultation that exposed the fraud and deceit that pervades the pro-fluoridation lobby's efforts to gain public support.

This is not about money, but power.

Any attempt to establish State-mediated medication through the public water supplies, whether through the use of such discredited fake medicines as fluoride or of other far more chemically active and licensed pharmaceuticals, simply does not make commercial sense. Only about 0.04% of the fluoride in fluoridated water reaches those few children who are alleged to 'need' it to prevent them developing bad teeth. About the same proportion of the population migh 'benefit' from other pharmaceuticals delivered in this indiscriminate fashion.

So is it really the case that pharmaceutical-grade chemicals can be produced in such large quantities, and at such minute cost, that it is possible for the chemical companies to dump them into public water supplies and knowingly waste 99.95% or more of their product, but still make a profit? If so, why are our hospitals having to pay such high charges for these medicines at present?

Or is the real reason for the current fluoridation crusade rather more sinister? Are fluoridating States really trying to establish control over the obstreperous, the malingering, and the elderly 'wasters of State medical resources' in order to manage their populations according to some nebulous and unproven social engineering methodology that will minimise the problems caused by square pegs in round holes?

Are all who hold views different from those of the State simply terrorists, people to be sedated and controlled, whether they wish to be so treated or not? If so, then Huxley and Orwell were indeed the prophets that we are beginning to suspect. We allow chemical control by the State to happen at our ultimate peril.

Doug Cross

http://www.ukcaf.org/environment_people_or_profit.html
___________________________________________________________________________________________