IS IT TIME TO END THE NHS QUANGOS ?

How can it be right that at a time when the NHS is on its uppers and in immediate danger of having to make cuts of 10% or more, across the board it can not only completely ignore public opinion and its democratic status but also find hundreds of thousands of poundt to fight its own patients for the right to waste untold millions on their forcible medication for what is a minor problem which can be treated "safely and effectively" as they would say buy a few free toothbrushes and paste??? Persuing the unwanted and useless fluoridation is not just grotesque waste but genuinely begins to hint at fascism and totalitarianism. Is it time to hold a public enquiry into the conduct of these unelected bodies and abolish these out of date and out of control quangos that think themselves above the law before they do any more serious damage to either the NHS services or its patients. ?

FLUORIDE SONG FROM TRILLION

FLUORIDE SONG FROM TRILLION

MERCURY IN YOUR FLU JAB

THE SPECTATOR

Monday, 17th August 2009

The flu jab choice the Department of Health might not tell you about

Fraser Nelson 4:48pm

Which flu jab would you like this season – the one with mercury, or without? It’s a question you’re unlikely to be asked when the NHS vaccination programme gets underway in October but there actually is a choice. One swine flu vaccine ordered by the government, Panderix, contains thimerosal, a preservative which is 49.6% mercury by weight. The other swine flu jab, Celvapan, is mercury-free.

I found this out by calling the Department of Health on a hunch. When governments order vaccines, and have no intention of telling patients what’s in the mix, they tend to go for the bulk cheap ones. These often contain thimerosal. But the use of mercury in vaccines is far from uncontroversial. A few years ago, class action by American parents of autistic children was brought (unsuccessfully) against the makers of thimerosal. They suspected that mercury, a proven neurotoxin, could have impaired the mental development of their children given its presence in child vaccines. These controversies seldom kick off in Britain because parents are told nothing about the vaccines.

Andy Burnham said last week that his department intends to "target" 500,000 pregnant women when it starts its vaccination programme. Now, NHS24 has plenty to say about pregnant women and mercury. It advises them that mercury "can have a damaging effect on your baby’s developing nervous system" and that pregnant women had best avoid swordfish because it contains "a high level of mercury". By “high” it means that swordfish is a millionth mercury – one “part per million” is mercury." So why should pregnant women – who are advised to take a swine flu jab – inject themselves with the very stuff that the government considers it is prudent for them to avoid? Why not advise them to take the mercury-free jab? Or at least explain the risks and give them the choice?

The Department of Health tells me “we won't be advising against pregnant women using it as there is no reason to”. Its standard line (see it in full here) is that “there is no evidence” that mercury (at the levels that exist in thimerosal vaccines) is harmful. This is stating the obvious: if there were evidence of neurological damage – be it Alzheimer’s in the elderly or autism in children – it would be a scandal of Thalidomide proportions. But the Department of Health has for the last few years been phasing thimerosal out of the DTP baby vaccines. Why might it do that, you may ask, if it is so confident that thimerosal was doing no harm?

I suspect that the Department will have to rethink its decision not to tell pregnant women about Panderix (also called Prepandrix) and mercury. The era of the expert patient is upon us. Doctors have to explain themselves, their products, their prescriptions. They can’t really say “the man in Whitehall knows best, you may feel a little prick”. I’d argue they do have a duty to tell an inquisitive patient what’s in the mix. That patient may very well be nervous about mercury, perhaps noting that no-one in the UK government will actually say it is safe (they say there’s no evidence of harm, a crucial difference, and officials are very careful not to go any further).

The use of mercury in medicine is a deeply controversial subject, and one that may divide CoffeeHousers too. In recent years, there have been several studies into thimerosal – all of which have been unable to find evidence of harm. But the overall guidance from most Western governments is quite simple: if you can avoid mercury, do so. The NHS has two swine flu vaccines. It should give everyone, especially pregnant women, the choice of staying mercury free.

SUPPORT THE NHS, SAY NO TO FLUORIDE

Whatever you political persuasion, the chances are you believe that the NHS is a good idea which should be preserved. David Cameron has just come out in favour of it and this is not surprising, the NHS is "against sin" in political terms. Of course its easy for the the American politicians to snipe at it because such a system would undoubtedly make inroads into the grotesque profiteering of the American drug empires.

The credit crunch is the latest threat to the UK health service and it's obvious that some cuts will be necessary whatever Party assumes power next year. Rather than cut the services themselves, the Government should be thinking the unthinkable. they should be cutting out the men with suits in the SHAs and the PCTs. Most of them are just political appointees with little or no health background and who are rather better at looking after the PCT etc than the Health Service or Trusts.

Many of them receive grotesquely large salaries especially the CEOs, that are not justified and are no longer affordable. The Strategic Health Authorities are a case in point. One GP doctor in Essex complained bitterly that rather than benefit from the recently improved salaries the government put in place, that he had actually been sacked and advised to live off his pension. Meanwhile, the boss of his SHA was gettting £60K more per year than even Gordon Brown. I wonder how that can be justified. and dont forget these are the very people who are ignoring public opinion and trying to force fluoride down our throats because they think they know best. Its painfully obvious that most them dont even know diddly squat.

A couple of months back during the "consultation" on fluoridation in Southamption the SHA decided to completly ignore 78% public poll results against the toxic waste plan. Even Brown publicly stated that fluoride should not be imposed on people without consent and now even Andy Burnham who normally salivates like one of Pavlovs dogs at the very mention of Fluoride has stated the same as Gordon Brown. Its strange really, i had no idea he had any plans for a Damascus trip but it seems he met someone on the road and finally saw the light. Of course we cannot really believe anything that the Vicar of Bray says but at least we can hold him to it when the time comes. Its after all a bit of a pity that he was not so gung ho about "debate" before the Consultation(sic) decided to forece everyone to have it by law.

Manchester, which has close links with the Brown regime has also shelved plans for fluoridation in the North West pending the results of the Judicial Review which the good folk of Southamption have brought against the clearly out of touch and out of control SHA. Sadly councils in West Yorkshire have not yet heard the news and even as i write are still wasting time and our money on "studies" and "consultation" Hopefully, the penny will finally drop to the East of the Pennines and the credit crunch will be taken as an opportunity to dump this evil plan in favour of better dental education and more dentists.

THE ADVENTURES OF ANDY BURNHAM - THE CLIMBDOWN KID

DENTISTRY WEB SITE HEAPS DOUBT ON FUTURE OF FLUORIDATION

It seems like only yesterday that the South Central Strategic Health Authority was telling its dwindling audience that they didnt give a bugger about individual rights, Democracy or how many people objected to fluoridation: It was going to be imposed on Southampton and parts of Hampshire whether they liked it or not because it was the health "evidence" that mattered most. Indeed it said as much in the double speak of the 2003 Act which hoped to popularise mass poisoning (surely Mass Medication. Ed !) One thing you can be sure of however is that the delusional nature of the pro-fluoride loonies continues to grow


Only last week UKCAF's Web Site exposed the much trumpeted National Fluoride Information Centre as just an abandoned building lost amidst the sprawling campus of Manchester University. Even the campus security had not heard of it. It turns out that It was not a Centre of Excellence, It was certainly not National and if this was not enough, it contained no Information about Fluoride or anything else. Possibly the Fluoridistas have run out of money or at least soon will if threats of cuts to the NHS budgets because of the Credit Crunch are even half true. Or perhaps, the funding has been diverted to clean out a Moat, build a Dead Duck House or most likely, to pay the collossal salaries of the SHA's CEO,s which are even higher than those of the Prime Minister.


Perhaps this is one reason why Gordon Brown said during the Southampton "consultation process" (sic) that fluoridation would not be imposed upon people without their consent. It was a pity that this message had not filtered down to the SHAs whose determination to fluoridate us all knew no bounds. But better late than never. The good folk of Southampton have fought a valiant fight to stop this evil, expensive and totally useless imposition and the Judicial Review they have provoked, has served to concentrate the few brain cells remaining in New Labours Ship of State to a realisation that on grounds of expense and certainly electoral practicality and popularity, fluoridation is probably a no no.
Its not therefore very surprising that Burnham has now clambered down of his high horse and admitted that fluoridation will not be imposed upon anybody. Of course this might just be more weasel words, or maybe comrade Brown didnt like being contradicted by the upstart. And anyway, Should the Sec of State actually be moving the goalposts whilst the matter was before Judicial Review. If they move them anymore they will need to put castors on them.


Now we learn that the Fluoridistas in the North West have slammed on the breaks because they cannot afford to waste money on something which the review may find against if there is any Justice left in this septic Isle. Of course the wording of the 2003 legislation does say deep in the text that SHA,s do have the ultimate say, it now appears that this is being moderated by the words of both Gordon Brown and the Sec of State for health and local people will after all have the final word about any tampering with their water supplies. If this is truly the direction the government is now heading then lets encourage them to improve dental education and put in place more dentists and forget this outdated and discredited masturbatory fantasy called fluoridation once and for all. Its never too late to return to common sense and it usually proves very popular.

If this message doesnt get through however the fight will not only continue to rid us all of this madness but it will increase, We will not tolerate compulsory mass medication, we will not pay the water companies or anyone else for contaminated water and we will not pay for Trickle Meters which threaten our health and disrupt our hot water and central heating systems. The Government cannot disconnect us so now is the time to stand firm and once and for all Say No To Fluoride and fluoridation and all those politicians of whatever party who seek to impose it upon us.

The Dangers of Fluoride & Water Fluoridation

NATIONAL FLUORIDE INFORMATION CENTRE DOES NOT EXIST

The Government's flagship 'Information Centre' is a lonely telephone
answering machine in an abandoned building.

The UK Councils Against Fluoride website reveals that......

"The 'National Fluoride Information Centre' was set up by the British Government in 2004. It was enthusiastically promoted as a reputable 'academically independent centre', and every effort was made to raise its public profile as a new and reliable Centre of Excellence, to persuade the public and the Health Sector that it would become an authoritative official source of information on fluoride.

Five years on, we have the evidence of what we have long suspected - that this 'National Centre' is a sham. It has no full-time staff, and no office. There is no manned Help Line. Instead, it's a tiny locked room in an almost empty building, abandoned as unfit for modern science two years ago.

Unlike your local Health Centre or Tourism Centre, you can't book an appointment, or just drop in - there's no-one there. Even the maintenance staff have never heard of it! So today we show you what this prestigious National Centre of Excellence really is. Then we'll identify who is behind it, and what needs to be done to stop such political manipulation in the future."

When Health Secretary Alan Johnson attended the 2008 Annual Conference of the National Fluoride Information Centre (NFIC), he predictably echoed the familiar dogma of the pro--fluoridation lobby, urging Primary Care Trusts and Regional Health Authorities in England to "push forward with the consultation process about fluoridating water supplies". He was followed by the Deputy Chief Dental Officer, Tony Jenner, who sang the praises of Manchester University for hosting the NFIC which, he said, was "making a positive contribution to raising the public’s general awareness about the value of water fluoridation."

But were they really aware of just how empty their welcoming speeches really were? Despite all their no-doubt ernest intentions, their words were mere meaningless rhetoric. They simply reinforced the cynical propaganda that has become the foundation of one of the most offensive medical scams ever perpetrated on the public by the UK's increasingly disreputable Department of Health.For the NFIC is a charade; there is, in fact, nothing that resembles a 'National Centre' in the Coupland 3 Building of Manchester University - just a couple of (very) part-time staff and a deserted room with a telephone answering machine.

The whole set-up is a deliberate public relations scam by the Department of Health and its spin-doctors, an illusion designed to persuade the general public and, especially, health professionals across the entire country, that here is an academically respectable Centre of Excellence that provides reliable and unbiased information on which public decisions about water fluoridation can be based.For the rotten truth behind all the hype, the frenetic busy-ness of International Conferences, and the sponsored research, is that it's all nothing but a facade.

The Centre was designed to replace the Government's hopelessly ineffective propaganda outfit, the British Fluoridation Society, with more skilled professional manipulators of public opinion. A new operation, directed by professional spin-doctors, was essential to drive the Department's new programme to impose water fluoridationon almost half of the population of England. There was, inevitably, a problem. Public awareness of the dangers of water fluoridation is now far greater, since everyone has easy access to the world's scientific literature through the Internet. Resistance to ernest reassurances of the 'safety and efficacy' of fluoridation was becoming alarmingly high. So the new unit had to give at least an appearance of solid academic respectability - and where better than that hot-bed of fluoridation promotion, Manchester University's Dental Units.When the Centre was set up, the University proudly trumpeted its hosting of the NFIC:‘England’s first independent fluoride information centre has been launched using funding from the Department of Health, to meet an anticipated public demand for information after changes to the Government’s Water Bill.'

What it completely forgot is that the public is already very well aware of where it can find indepedent information on fluoridation - those sources already exist, and are not under tight Governmental control!The semblance of academic respectablity is boosted by the Centre's Annual Conference, attended by delegates from all over the world, and it channels some of its DoH funding of £125,000 a year into academic research aimed at improving knowledge about fluorides and fluoridation. The Centre's first Director, Professor Anthony Blinkhorn, enthusiastically encouraged the public to contact the Centre on its public Help Line, assuring us that "The helpline is manned Monday–Friday and incorporates an out-of-office voicemail service."The Department's dynamic new ‘Information Centre’, with its full-time high-tech ‘Help Line’, has been in operation for the past five years, so you would be justified in assuming that it is a well-established and polished operation, with a busy Reception area and cabinets full of reliable leaflets and information sheets ready for inquirers to pick up and take away to study.Health professionals across the country believe that the Centre has a substantial physical and academic presence, and its statements on fluoridation are received with appropriate gravity and respect throughout the Health Sector.

Coupland Building 3 reception - there's no-one here to direct you to the NFIC - the staff have never heard of it! The laboratories were abandoned as 'unsuited to modern science'. The safe stands open and empty!
This is where the phone rings when you call the NFIC 'Help Line'. Inside - just an answering machine.
Health and Safety would have a field day here - timber with upstanding nails strewn on the stairs.

Not exactly the image of respectability that the Dept of Health endorses. This semi-deserted, dirty and dreary building is the permanent home of the elusive 'National Fluoride Information Centre'.
The reality - an abandoned building, 'unfit for modern science'.
And that, of course, is exactly the impression that the Dept of Health's promotion and publicity has been designed to provide. It is an unfortunate fact that the most successful hoaxers rely on their victims being willing and gullible enough to deceive themselves, and there has certainly been some expert manipulation of the public's perception of this supposedly prestigious National Centre of Excellence.Government hype has persuaded lazy Health Service staff to swallow the propaganda pouring from the pro-fluoride spin machine - they don't have the time to check out the reliability of their sources, and assume that because the Department recommends the Centre, it must be kosher.But In reality, the whole exercise is a public relations illusion. There is no 'Centre' in the Coupland 3 Building, the official address of the NFIC. Although the University spent £1.3 million renovating the building ten years ago, the Shool of Pharmacy moved out in 2007, because the building was 'unfit for modern science', and the building remains virtually abandoned.When our Investigator walked in and asked a baffled receptionist and security man where the NFIC was, they were utterly confused. When he used his mobile phone to call the Help Line from the corridor, the phone in room CG117 rang; when he hung up, it stopped.So it emerges that the dynamic heart of this busy and illustrious 'National Centre' is in fact an empty, tiny, but securely locked room, in a semi-derelict building on the Manchester University campus. On its dusty desk is a telephone answering machine. Kate Tidman, the nominal 'Communications Manager' of the Oral Health Unit and (very part-time) of the NFIC and an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, visits this forgotten outpost of the University for ten minutes or so, about once a week, to collect messages left by frustrated callers to the Centre's permanently un-manned 'Help Line'.The desk drawers are empty, the cupboards bare. The building's reception, security and maintenance staff have never heard of the NFIC, and even the few researchers still inhabiting this shell are confused and vague about the NFIC's very existence.So just what is going on here? The Centre's Annual report discloses only two members of staff. The Director, Prof. Robin Davies, is head of the Oral Health Unit, based in the Williamson
Building elsewhere on the campus, and also has a senior research post with Colgate. With his many research and management roles in the University's dental faculty, he is hardly able to spend a great deal of his valuable time twiddling his thumbs in a cramped and dusty room waiting to assist casual callers on the Help Line. Ms Tidman also has a busy schedule in the Oral Health Unit - again hardly a job that would allow her to slot much of her time into a busy schedule, despite the supposed great demand for information from the NFIC that was so eagerly anticipated by the University back in 2004.And since there is no sign anywhere in the room of all the 'information' that the Centre's website says the Centre can supply - room CG117 is indeed, totally bereft of any sign of any form of printed material at all - just where does Ms Tidman squirrel away this hoard of valuable guidance material?As far as we can see, the £125,000 Department of Health grant to the NFIC goes towards maintaining a catchy web site where most of the documentation can be downloaded free of charge and, presumably, to cover the costs of running the annual Conference. The only two staff identified are both full-time employees of the Oral Health Unit, and are presumably paid out of its £2 million annual salaries budget, so just what is the DoH - sorry, our - money spent on?The NFIC channels Department of Health funds (presumably not the cash included in the direct grant to the Centre) to sponsor research into such essential dental research as 'the assessment of facial attractiveness' in cases of dental fluorosis, as perceived by students. To our suspicious minds, this sounds suspiciously like an attempt to try to find just what degree of dental fluorosis the public can be persuaded is 'attractive', a desperate claim that we have heard several times recently from promoters of the more arcane 'benefits' of fluoridation.The evidence that the NFIC is nothing more than a paper exercise exposes the depths to which this depraved Government and its autocratic Department of Health will go to mislead even health professionals that fluoridation is a viable therapeutic option, even under today's supposedly more enlightened approach to 'evidence-based' medicine. In our next issue we will discuss who is behind this scam, and how commercial interests now manipulate ingenuous politicians to over--ride ethical and prudent health care policies.