Thursday, 1 July 2010


Thursday, July 01, 2010 


Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg has launched the 'Your Freedom' website seeking our views on which laws need to be repealed:

We're working to create a more open and less intrusive society through our Programme for Government. We want to restore Britain’s traditions of freedom and fairness, and free our society of unnecessary laws and regulations – both for individuals and businesses.

This site gives you the chance to submit, comment on, or vote for ideas about how we can do this. Your ideas will inform government policy and some of your proposals could end up making it into bills we bring before Parliament to change the law.

So if there are any laws or regulations you'd like us to do away with, then submit your idea. If you see ideas here already that you like the look of, then rate them and get them moved up the list. And if there’s more you’d like to say, then talk to others in the comments section for each proposal.

It’s time to have your say. After all – it’s your freedom. There is also a video of Nick Clegg explaining the purpose of the web site.


This is a very useful opportunity to remind Mr Clegg that we wrote to him about water fluoridation in the run up to the General Election and his reply was one of categorical opposition to compulsory fluoridation.

This is a golden opportunity to write to Nick Clegg and remind him of his reply to our enquiry about water fluoridation dates March 8th, 2010 in which he said

...."In General terms, Liberal Democrats believe that people and local communities should have the ability to make their own decisions as to whether or not they they should take forms of medication, which according to the stated purpose, fluoridation would effectively constitute. Obviously, there is no such thing as absolute certainty when it comes to health safety -- but in normal circumstances, patients can weigh up the pros and cons of receiving potentially risky treatment and choose whether to undertake it. Mass fluoridation of water would leave people with no choice, and we believe that it should not be imposed by Whitehall diktat."

Signed by Douglas Dowell

Office of Nick Clegg MP

The more letters the Deputy PM receives on this subject now, the more likely we are to have success in getting the provisions of the Water Act 2003 removed along with any form or threat of compulsion. We should also ask for a full review of current water fluoridation in the West Midlands, the North East and elsewhere with a view to ending this practice as quickly as possible. . We cannot end expansion fluoridation without removing exisiting schemes as this would be unacceptable.

Brian Jackson

Friends of the Earth, Fluoride Campaign.

Tuesday, 29 June 2010




Having discussed this week the progress of the campaign so far with other campaigners. I am inclined to say that we may well be winning the war against the cult of fluoride, although there are several battles yet to be fought and the Judicial Review in Southampton is probably the most important component for now. The fact that the SHA there has managed to find £400K of public money, IE our money which will be employed to fight us in the Review is not just a disgraceful misuse of badly needed NHS funds, its a disgraceful abuse of so called democratic power as well as desperately needed cash. If full and open public consultation was anything more than hollow words, why were we not given some of it to make our own case?

One thing is for sure, it shows just how desperate the Fluorinaders have become. Clearly they know they are in real danger of losing out to public pressure. We must keep up the political pressure and call for an enquiry into how this state of affairs can be allowed. How can there be an unbiased Consultation when the government stumps up money to ensure any decisions fall to them and their policy?

But, we are where we are so we must press on regardless and concentrate on the next issue, ie; the recommendations from the EC about infant formula and fluoridated water. If the latest findings indicate that fluoride can cause problems at levels as low as 0.7 PPM how come fluoridating water up to 1.2 PPM is considered OK. New Zealand for example is concentrating on this as as a major part of their strategy to get the whole fluoridation scheme abandoned. In this we must wish them all success. In the UK we are allegedly Democratic but the facts seem to indicate otherwise. We cannot claim to be a democracy when we are still apparently subject to a soviet style command economy led from the center. The proclamation is made by the PM or the Health Minister who at the time was Andy (virgil) Burnham, the SHAs MUST obey, the water companies are then INSTRUCTED to add fluoride to the water and all decision making and choice for the consumer is lost.

We do not believe this is acceptable. Local decisions must be taken locally after due consultation and deliberation not just theoretically, but in reality. Currently there is NO CHOICE when even the consultation is just a smoke screen. Even Gordon Brown agreed to local decision making earlier this year when things were getting hot for him and even his Lap Dog Burnham was forced to stand in line with him. When we wrote to the leaders of the political parties earlier this year we received similar answers rejecting central compulsion from the Tories and the Libdems, UKIP, the Green Party etc etc.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, The NHS needs money badly if we are closing A and E and childrens units and tens of thousands of people still cannot find an NHS dentist. Strangely however our previous Labour government could not even be bothered to respond to our letters although they could continue to throw hundreds of thousands at a campaign to force water fluoridation on us, despite having no proper up to date scientific evidence to justify such a policy. Even the latest reseach into topical applications of fluoride could find no conclusive evidence that fluoride prevented tooth decay but sadly much evidence that dental fluorosis was becoming more rampant. This mad cap policy which we did not vote for and for which they have no mandate to persue has no sscienticic back. In the run up to the General Election, the new Coilition Government of Conservatives and Lib Dems inherited this pathetic legislation and if it does not address the issue quickly, it is also likely to inherit the blame. More policy U- Turns will not look good.

Another issue is the toxicity and action of fluorine in its many forms. Obviously even without help, fluorine is more than toxic enough to do serious damage and as it accumulates in the body, its in no great hurry and can cause serious damage over a prolonged period. Many campaigners are increasingly concerned about its synergistic effects when it reacts or bonds with other chemicals. Clearly it activates and intensifies many chemicals and may even be causing normally harmless substances to punch well above their weight. These can have drastic and and as yet unknown effects on the immune system via the bone marrow. We know that certain groups are particularly sensitive to fluoride and other chemicals, notably kidney patients on dialysis and there can be no control of dosage via the public water supply. We all consume different amounts of water so the allegedly safe "dosage" of 1 PPM in the water supply has no basis in reality and its simply wishful thinking. Additional at risk groups will be people who already receive more than enough fluoride compounds via tea, grape juice and foods processed in already fluoridated areas.

If the new government decides to continue the work of New Labour and press on with fluoridation, the fluorinaders will probably act surprised and shocked when they have to start allocating even more funds from the NHS pocket to pay, unpaid water bills to keep the Water Industry happy or defend legal actions provide security for toxic tankers and isolated water treatment plants which become terrorist targets. Neither the companies nor the Government can pretend to be shocked however. Many thousands of consumers have already pledged to refuse to pay for toxic waste contaminated tap water and rightly so. And the numbers are set to grow exponentially if consumers find themselves compelled to self medicate via contaminated tap water for no good reason and this at a time when the fluoride budget is already exhausted.

I am not aware of any contract between the water companies or the government or the people for such a practice and if the coilition continue with this discredited and illegal New Labour policy, they will bring about their own demise much sooner than they think. The UK public are now acutely aware that we will all have to go through difficult times whether as tax payers or benefits claimants and are prepared for that, but i dont think they are prepared to lie down and be poisoned as well.

I received written confirmation only yesterday from the Scottish Parliament that fluoridated salt, which is now available via LIDL Supermarkets in Scotland is not a licensed medicine anywhere in the UK. In that case why is it being sold at all and why is it being put in the public water supply or the salt under the pretense that it is a medicine??. Presumably the fluorinaders are increasingly alarmed at the prospect of England and Wales following Scotlands lead and refusing to allow any fluoridation and salt will be their fall back position for this waste disposal exercise. Could it be that those prescribing it who are not doctors and have no right to prescribe, let alone force it upon any of us sense not just prohibition in the wind but possible court actions against all perpetrators. After all evidence is already being collected in the USA for major Class Actions against all involved in fluoridation and given the increasing communications across the pond, such actions could happen here sooner than they think. After all, Irrespective of the results of any Judicial Review, we should consider the possibility and necessity of legal action against quack doctors and quack quangos for medical malpractice and impersonation of doctors. The government could possibly forestall this by winding up the SHAs and PCTs and reinstalling the locally elected, Local Health Authorities which at least represented local people and local thinking.

Despite all this we still regularly read out and out twaddle from journalists who should know better but really dont. Only last year on a phone in on BBC radio Lancashire, I was pulled up by a programme presenter for using the word poison, when I challenged him it was clear that he did not even know that a toxin and a poison were the same thing. BBC local radio used to be fairly reliable and checked its facts. Now under the post Jonathan Ross regime of ultra paranoia, everything has to be double-checked and signed by at least two producers for broadcast purposes but how can this be done when the staff are so poorly educated. The same even applies in parliament where according to some scientifically interested MPs, only about 10% of MPs actually have any scientific training or qualifications at all, so its very hard to get out a clear message when even the messengers dont understand it. In such a climate of corruption and ignorance, lies can easily take on the mantle of truth and even the good guys and the innocent bystanders are villified.

So what do we want? We want not only the abandonement of all future fluoridation projects and wasteful PR and we also want the abandonment of existing fluoridation projects in the North East, and the Midlands. We want proper dentistry provided by the NHS at the point of need for this is where the money wasted on fluoride should really be spent. And perhaps we need and want most of all, a Government of whatever persuasion that listens to the electorate and especially its own independent advisors and does not hatch policies on the hoof with no scientific basis which it uses to dictate to science. First science and then policy. This is the way of common sense. Finally we want to see the end of the Water Act 2003, A useless and hipocritical piece of legislation reminiscent of the notorious and failed Dangerous Dogs Act. With a fluoride policy, The tail must not be allowed to wag the dog.


28th June, 2010