<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Latest commentaries on fluoridation in the UK]]></title>
<link>http://www.ukcaf.org</link>
<description><![CDATA[Detailed assessments of latest developments in fluoridation in the UK and elsewhere]]></description>

<language>en</language>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:13:54 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<generator>Incomedia WebSite X5</generator>
<managingEditor>info@ukcaf.org</managingEditor>
<webMaster>info@ukcaf.org</webMaster>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Southampton children will be guinea pigs in fluoridation experiment]]></title>
<link>http://www.ukcaf.org/southampton_-_the_final_solution.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[A Freedom of Information response from the UK Department of Health reveals that the children of Southampton will be used in 'research' to investigate the effects of water fluoridation. But if adverse effects are detected, it would be almost 25 years before all children at risk could be assumed to be clear. <br /><br />This form of State-sponsored clinical research violates the fundamental principles of human rights. Since fluoridation has been imposed on 5 million people in the UK for over fifty years, why has this 'research' not been done already? Doug Cross esxamines the legal issues raised by compulsory recruitment of entire communities in illegal clincial research]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ukcaf.org/du</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Health Authority is not required to respect public opinion]]></title>
<link>http://www.ukcaf.org/health_authorities_can_ignore_public_opinion.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[The High Court ruling in London that South Central Strategic Health Authority can impose its decision to fluoridated Southampton City's water does NOT mean that the way is now clear for the project to go ahead. <br /><br />Fluoridation is a clinical intervention, and as such must be regulated by medicinal law, leaving the way open for an appeal on the grounds that it cannot be lawful to consult the public on any action that is itself unlawful!]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:11:56 GMT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ukcaf.org/zn</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Water fluoridation as clinical malpractice.]]></title>
<link>http://www.ukcaf.org/water_fluoridation_as_clinical_malpractice.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[In the UK, the legislation on fluoridation is incompatible with medicinal law. Public health programmes may use a variety of activities to achieve their goals, but they must not cross the line of clinical intervention except under the strict controls of standard medical practice.<br /><br />Administering chemicals, virtually unavoidably, to the general public with the intent to affect a human disease in a few members of the community is a clinical intervention employing an unlicensed medicinal substance, by unqualified persons, and without the one-to-one health professional-patient relaltionship. <br /><br />Doug Cross argues that this is gross clinical malpractice, and must be stopped immediately.]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:17:04 GMT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ukcaf.org/cn</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CDC data on fluorosis in American teenagers is misleading]]></title>
<link>http://www.ukcaf.org/what_the_cdc_fluorosis_data_really_show.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[The CDC statement that around 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis is severely misleading. It refers to the effects of exposure of American childrento excess fluroride as infants, twenety to thirty years ago. It also gives an overall estimate for all such children, at times when far fewer lived in areas with fluoridated water.<br /><br />When the figures are adjusted to take these into account, the real proportion of American kids damaged in this fashion is nearer to 70% - and quite how many of today's infants will develop fluorosis as teenagers is unknown. Doug Cross reports on yet another fluoridation fraud.]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:24:12 GMT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ukcaf.org/an</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Developments and commentaries on water fluoridation]]></title>
<link>http://www.ukcaf.org/index.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[Doug Cross provides regular analyses and commentaries on recent developments in the science and law of water fluoridation. This web site is packed with essential informationfor those looking for new ideas on how to identify and deal with the pseudo-science and legal clap-trap of water fluoridation. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:40:27 GMT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.ukcaf.org/xr</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

