PCT AND SHA QUANGOS, REPENT, THE END IS NIGH

THUNDERBIRDS ARE ER...... GOING!

Listening to the news over the weekend, I was very pleased to hear that the coilition Government is now apparently preparing to dramatically reduce the duties of the PCTs and SHAs. Personally i would not even trust them with a vending machine let alone key services at the point of need. It cannot happen soon enough for me.

What cheered me up in particular was to hear Andy (Virgil) Burnhams response. He is now a very unhappy man, no doubt under pressure from his friends in these Quangos especially the Pro-Fluoridation Lobby who he has supported so loyally,. I will be listening for the sounds of weeping and wailing, and of course, the gnashing of teeth.

TIME TO WRITE TO NICK CLEGG DEPUTY PM AND REMIND HIM OF HIS STRONG OPPOSITION TO FLUORIDATION

Thursday, July 01, 2010　

LAUNCH OF "YOUR FREEDOM" -- GOVERNMENT WEB SITE

Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg has launched the 'Your Freedom' website seeking our views on which laws need to be repealed: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

FLUORIDE CAMPAIGN UPDATE. WHERE NEXT?

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH..........

FLUORIDE CAMPAIGN UPDATE. WHERE NEXT?

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.

BRIAN JACKSON

28th June, 2010

PRO-FLUORIDE PUNDITS ON THE ROPES RESORT TO DIRTY TACTICS.

Acccording to the Fluoride Action Network in the USA, their scientists and supporters strongly object to recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid's Nevada re-election campaign.

"Fluoridation opposition is science-based and growing," says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, who has co-authored the upcoming book, "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There." Co-authors are James Beck, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of Alberta in Calgary; and Spedding Micklem, DPhil, professor emeritus at Edinburgh University.

"We have spent many years investigating water fluoridation and the toxicity of fluoride and we are dismayed that commentators are willing to repeat, without verification, pro-fluoridation statements that disparage scientists and citizens who oppose the practice," says Connett.

"FAN's website http://www.FluorideAlert.org has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective," says Connett. "In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children." On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed."

"The majority of countries do not fluoridate or have ended the practice, including 98% of Western Europe, and yet, according to WHO statistics, their tooth decay rates are no different than those in fluoridated countries," Connett states.

The FAN website has an online DVD of 15 scientists explaining why fluoridation is a risky and inappropriate medical practice. These scientists include one Nobel Prize winner, three members of a National Research Council committee that published a groundbreaking report on fluoride's toxicity in 2006, and two former EPA scientists.

According to Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson, fluoridation is an "obsolete" practice that "is against all principles of modern pharmacology." FAN's site also has a listing of over 2800 scientists and professionals who are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.

The Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now concede that fluoride's predominant action on the tooth is topical, not systemic, as it works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. Both groups admit that using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula elevates the risk of dental fluorosis and they advise using very low or non-fluoridated water to lessen the risk. Pediatricians rarely inform parents of this advice.

"Topical treatments like fluoridated toothpaste are readily available. It makes no sense to expose the whole body to this toxic substance or force it on people who do not want it," says Connett.

According to Connett and other scientists, "Fluoridation is reckless as there is clear science indicating that fluoride has the potential to damage human bones, kidneys, thyroid and to lower children's IQs."

Connett concludes, "Fluoridation promoters have painted themselves into a corner and cannot find a face-saving way out. But citizen awareness and opposition is growing rapidly and instead of ridiculing those who oppose fluoridation, responsible commentators should educate themselves about this 60 year controversy and urge a more rational discussion of the issue."

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

Brian Jackson of the Friends of the Earth Fluoride Network concurs that the same bad mouthing, combined with bad science and political hipocrisy applies equally in the UK where even Government ministers spout nonesence about the "benefits of fluoride" regularly but somehow seem to be unable to respond to any scientific queries about it. Perhaps this is simply because these people either dont understand the science or more likely are terrified of beinf drawn into a proper discusion about it because they know they have litttle or no evidence to support their regularly repeated claims that it is "safe and effective" The only medical side effect that they will admit to is Dental Fluorosis, a mottling and discolouration and this they describe as "cosmetic". Its certainly not cosmetic to people who suffer from it and are too embarassed to smile.

If they didnt understand it there might be some excuse for their behaviour but the previous Government of New Labour even appointed Health minister Andy (Virgil) Burnham despite the fact that he was actually employed to represent the British Fluoridation Society. What a wonderful example of science and impartiality that was. Virgil only resigned from his position when we grassed him up to the press but of course this should not have been necessary. Amazingly, this was not the most glaring example of duplicity however. At an earlier stage, the Government appointed a research team at York University headed by Professor Sheldon. The stated aim was to examin the merits of fluoride with a view to rolling out fluoridation right across the UK. After careful consideration of all the available evidence and papers on fluoride and fluoridation, its summary indicated a lack of good quality evidence in this country and found that it could not recommend the expansion of fluoridation in the UK. Our wonderful Government however, not liking this result found it necessary to deliberately rewrite the summary and conclusions to make it look like Professor Sheldons team supported expansion of water fluoridation.

There is nothing new in this of course, its very typical of the pro-fluoride lobby and our Governments general attitude towards science, which it seems to believe is a tool to be used by the politicians to support any policy that they think will win them votes and keep them in power. Professor Nutt who was appointed to examine the current drug regulations but they also rubbished his findings and then removed him from his position. Government policy cannot be allowed to dictate to science or facts it has to be the other way round and any government which is prepared to stoop to such low and dishonest methods to support the unsupportable is simply not fit to be in power and cannot be trusted. A look at the recent history of MPs of all persuasions bears witness to this dishonesty. In the USA, the puppets of the regime or the corporations bad mouth opponents of fluoride, whilst here in the UK they just make up any old crap and lie through their teeth. "Oh brave new world that has such people in it!"

FLUORIDE... HERE'S THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.

JUDICIAL REVIEW DUE THIS AUTUMN..... OR IS IT?

The judicial review of fluoridation of water supplies in Southampton is expected to be heard in the autumn. That's according to health minister, ...

Its important to remember that in all polls on fluoridation its been rejected by a large majoority of the Population but Southamption only proved that there is little point in having a consultation when the SHAs can blithely do as they want and ignore all wishes and the proceed with a decision to fluoridate. This unscrupulous bit of double cross is enshrined in the so called fluoridation consultation legislation. If proof were needed the Southamption decision to fluoridate went ahead despite even a contrary statement from Gordon Brown and echoed by Health Minister that it should not be imposed upon people if they did not want it.

Sadly in the run up to the recent General Election, the then Shadow Minister Andrew Lansley agreed that fluoridadtion should not be imposed on people but seemed strangely unaware that the Water Act 2003 supported fluoridation irrespective of any overwhelming opposition. And, despite being asked since to clarify the Tory and coilition position, the legislation. has neith been amended or rescinded, leaving open the doors to fluoridation in future when the fuss has died down. This is a common methodology used by governments of all persuasions in the past.

Only complete abandonmend of illegal and antidemoncratic imposition of fluoridated water supples will satisfy anti-fluoride campaigners, many of whom have flatly refused to pay for water they consider poisoned or contaminated by toxic waste. In view of the double talke and hipocrisy of the pro fluoride lobby in the government and industry, this is both an understandable and reasonable position. Water companies should not be forced to contaminate what should be clean and potable drinking water, the majority of which will only enters the sewage system and then our streams and rivers. They have no contract with the general public to do such a thing have actively rejected it and refused to vote for those politicians of any party who chose to advocate such disgraceful, unscientific and and undemocratic action.

Of course this is the kind of blind and pig-headed attitude which we should all be well acquainted with. by now. Labour always seemed to ignore even the best expert advice, even from its own appointed advisors as in the York Report which could not recommend a further expansion of water fluoridation pending serious research. The government even re-wrote the summary to excuse their lies and ignored all protest from the York Committee. The same happend to Professor Nutt over their recommended changes in drug legislislation. and although this was perpetrated by the last Labour Government, the fact that the new Coilition Government is still refusing to examine the latest evidence and leave the 2003 Water Act on the books does not fill us with much confidence that they will be eventually much different from the previous mob. The credibility of the Coilition is therefore already under question.

one of our campaigners, Ann Willis alerts me to a piece in the Guardian on the 17th June

headed "CURB NHS SPENDING PLEDGE TO SAVE OTHER SERVICES, SAYS BURNHAM"

Andy Burnham, (pro-fluoridationist MP) is calling for money to be cut from the NHS budget, so that cash is available to spend on Social Services etc.

(My comment: I wonder if he wants a cut in the money which is spent on funding fluoridation schemes!)

Ann

Brian Jackson Comments. .......

Its interesting to note that Yesterdays Man, Burnham the origianl proposer and lobbyist for fluoridation, after Gordon Browns statement of alleged opposition to compulsory fluoridation himself came out against compulsion, presumably not because he really agreed with Brown but simply because he wished to appear to be behind brown in the run up to the election. This is typical of Burnham and many other career politicians.

Since the Blair intake the party has been stuffed with these lightweight chancers and opportunists who always turns up when there is an opportunity to be seen to be doing their masters work. For this reason if for no other, his decision to join the Labour Party leadership competition should be treated with the suspicion and derision which it truly deserves. If such people float to the top in the Labour Party, Labour will increasingly be seen for the disgraceful sham it now really is and there should be little surprise if it should fade to black in future electoral competitions as the electorate find them both unrepresentative and truly untrustworthy. Just as we have learned to distrust MPs over expenses claims we are also learning to be suspicious of their stated policies when their only real agenda is one of power seeking, just look at the uproar about the threat of electoral reform and coilition. It may be the MPs loss but it will certainly be democracy's gain.

Compulsory fluoridation, ID Cards, Databases etc are all merely symptoms of the paranoid Nanny State which does not trust the electorate and thinks they are elected to rule and dominate. They must now learn the real lesson of the last couple of years that their real task is to represent the electorate and carry out the wishes of the democratic majority without recourse to manipulaton of statistics, expenses or anything else. As a first major step in this direction, the New Coilition Government should take a firm hold of the Water Act 2003 and fluoridation and stick em both where the Sun dont shine.

ANDREW JOHN LEES, ( ENVIRONMENTALIST)

born 8th June, 1949, ---- died 31st December, 1994

I first met Andrew when I was in London to see my partner who worked at Reuters, and remembered to visit Friends of the Earths old HQ, mainly to pick up some leaflets and find out more about starting a Local Group here in Pendle. Though clearly busy he and Chris Church found time to make a cup of tea and talk to me about what a Local Group entailed. He was at once interested in the environment and eco-systems of Pendle and the Pennines and became very excited when i told him how I first encountered an Otter at close range and sad when he admitted he had never seen one in the wild. I came home and immediately Started Pendle Friends of the Earth. More than anyone else at FoE, he taught and inspired me and eventually when i was causing heaps of problems for polluters and their political apologists, he even deputised me to do media work for him when things got hectic. I learned things about the natural world and myself i would have never guessed and to this day feel guided by his wisdom and determination. As long as Friends of the Earth in the UK, remembers him, it will not go far wrong. Thank you for inspiring me Andrew, I will not forget.