UKCAF website

Look out - the lawyers are coming!

Doug Cross, 17 March 2009

The fraudulent misrepresentation of the supposed benefits of fluoridation is a scandal that continues unabated. Now an American Attorney has implemented UKCAF's call to use the law to bring the fluoride apologists to heel.

(CLICK HERE
to read Janie Evins' challenge )

What do you have to do to force Government Regulators to enforce the law? For several years now we have been warning the Department of Health, the British Fluoridation Society, and others that they were contravening the prohibition on the promotion of the alleged medicinal properties of fluorosilicic acid. From the MHRA - a deafening silence.

Whether you claim 'fluoride' to be an unlicensed medicine or a food, any such claim is prohibited. In both cases the penalty on conviction may be both a fine and, if the violation is of sufficient severity, a term of imprisonment. Given the extent and prevalence of dental fluorosis in all fluoridated countries, this is no small-scale violation by a quack snake-oil salesman. It is wholesale violation by a State Department threatening eventually to forcibly medicate over 20 million people in England

At last our message appears to have got through – but so far only in the USA. Lawyer Janie Evins has confronted Dr Lynn Moudon, Dental Director of the State of Arkansas, accusing her of either knowingly or negligently making false and misleading statements, improperly implying that she had relevant professional expertise, and of placing an unfair burden on the public by forcing people to buy expensive reverse osmosis units to avoid the unwanted chemical in their water supply.

Ms Evins has identified specific claims made by Dr Moudon, and challenged her to either retract each one, admit that she was merely expressing an opinion, or else supply scientifically valid proof of her claims. Should she fail to respond, then Dr Moudon has been served notice that legal redress and professional sanctions will be sought against her.

Here in the UK, we have warned Council Scrutiny Committees, the BFS and the Dept of Health that such misrepresentation is also an offence under English law as well as in gross violation of professional standards and Professional Codes of Practice. Last year our warning to the Manx Attorney General that similar actions were prohibited under Manx law coincided with an almost instantaneous abandonment of plans to fluoridate the Island. But here in England all such warnings have fallen on deaf ears.

In September 2008 UKCAF referred the Report of the North West Fluoridation Evaluation Group to the NHS Counter Fraud Division, on the grounds that it was fraudulent by misrepresentation, by omission, and through breach of duty of care. We also referred the South Central SHA's glossy promotional brochure to the same office in December 2008, together with Earl Baldwin's review of the document, which he branded 'propaganda'.

And so far – nothing! Even when confronted with evidence that the scientific basis for fluoridation is fatally flawed, and would incur millions of pounds in unwarranted and avoidable costs, the NHS Fraud watchdog dozes blissfully on. When it is informed that NHS staff are making illegal and actionable claims, it turns its head and ignores the evidence.

The same policy of ignoring inconvenient evidence and hoping it will go away appears to be Standard Operating Procedure at that other stalwart watchdog for the consumer, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Highly improper advertisements in the press from the Manx Department of Health and from the Southampton PCT were reported to the ASA in May and December last year, but in the following months there has been absolutely no indication that there is anyone at home to read the complaints.

Even the British Fluoridation Society's petulant referral of our own presentation hand-outs to the ASA four months ago has been followed up by a deafening silence. So we are assuming that the ASA has rejected the BFS's complaint, and today we publish the hand-outs – bizarrely referred to by the ASA as 'marketing advertisments' (what we are supposed to be selling is entirely unclear) - to which the hemi-intellectuals of the BFS took such exception.

And this brings up another issue that we find alarming in this increasingly decrepit 'democracy' of ours. The ASA is supposed to be an independent arbitrator of advertisements, and claims that its decisions are recognised by the Courts. But the process that it adopts in scrutinising complaints is entirely countrary to the rules of English jurisprudence.

The person or organisation against whom a complaint is made is apparently assumed to be guilty as charged, and is required to prove that all parts of the 'advertisement' are true and verifiable. The ASA does not disclose the name of the complainant to the defendant, nor any of the evidence on which the complaint has been based. The BFS's supposed 'experts in water fluoridation' remain unknown to us – by our reckoning, this description of the its sources is a contradiction in terms, yet we have had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of these 'experts'

Ignoring nasty symptoms is generally considered to be 'A Bad Thing' - they tend to fester and become more difficult to deal with. Now that a lawyer has come out fighting and is using the law to challenge the fluoridation miscreants in the USA, it should not be long before one of our own home-grown legal experts joins in here too. When they do, we'll be delighted to provide them with the essential references and evidence that they need to take these charlatans to the cleaners!

http://www.ukcaf.org/look_out_-_the_lawyers_are_coming.html
________________________________________________________________________________________