Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chairman
John Spottiswoode BSc, BA, PMP, SNHS (Nut.; Ad. Nut.; Herb.; Anatomy & Physiology)
Links
- IRELAND AGAINST FLUORIDATION
- Video of Prof Connett and SCSHA's decision to fluoridate Southampton.
- UK Against Fluoride
- West Midlands Against Fluoridation
- UK Councils Against Fluoridation
- All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation
- Fluoride Alert
- South West Hants Green Party
- National Pure Water Association
Newsletter
If you would like to subscribe just e-mail nofluoride@googlemail for latest information on how to stop this undemocratic decision to fluoridate Southampton against the will of the people by 12 unelected members of the Strategic Health Authority who do not even live here.
The Board
Dr Geoffrey Harris - Chairman
Jim Easton - Chief Executive
Chris Evennett – Director of Strategy and Reform Katherine Fenton - Director of Clinical Standards
Olga Senior - Director of Communications & Corporate Affairs
Ben Lloyd - Director of Finance and Investment
Prof. John Newton Regional Director of Public Health
Terry Butler CBE
Alyson Coates .
Joe McLoone
Chris Le Fevre
Martin Howell
The Board
Dr Geoffrey Harris - Chairman
Jim Easton - Chief Executive
Chris Evennett – Director of Strategy and Reform Katherine Fenton - Director of Clinical Standards
Olga Senior - Director of Communications & Corporate Affairs
Ben Lloyd - Director of Finance and Investment
Prof. John Newton Regional Director of Public Health
Terry Butler CBE
Alyson Coates .
Joe McLoone
Chris Le Fevre
Martin Howell
2 comments:
The Department of Health
Dear Mr Demetris,
I appreciate your long and detailed reply. I trust you will do me the same courtesy as I devoted to your words, and read every word I have to contribute to rebut your stance.
Firstly it is now universally accepted that if any benefit exists from fluoride, it is by TOPIC not SYSTEMIC [ingested, swallowed] application. Your entire premise in support fails, unless you can show me any modern research which proves systemic use has any benefits, against the mountains of evidence which prove the long term damage it does. What is the point in poisoning the water when NO BENEFIT worthwhile, has been proven to exist?
I have pointed this out numerous times to Ms Brothwell, but she simply ignores this basic fundamental fact, which is the only determinant for any form of fluoride treatment. She then says that she has answered my questions, and the matter is now closed.
This of course is a deliberate lie to try to suffocate the enquiry.
Your figure of 80 pence per person per annum as the cost of Fluoridation of the water supplies, is suggested as being good value if it reduces the £40 pa cost of dentistry.
Again, you are ignoring the point--that SYSTEMIC application
A> Does not work and
B> Will cost a great deal more in future health problems being stored up in the bones, thyroids etc and future cancers of those subjected to fluoridated water
over the next 50 years.
Over 50 years, even assuming a static cost, you will have totally wasted £40 pp, before the NHS is overwhelmed with treating the massive damage now being stored up in the body.
Is this your idea of sound cost/benefit analysis? £40 pp for the 6m people now being poisoned by fluoride works out at £240 Million down the drain, which can be at least tripled in inflationary terms, for a process rejected by 98% of the EU, and many other countries who have stopped fluoridating water supplies, such as Canada, Cuba, and Switzerland.
Are they all stark raving bonkers, or is it just possible they have done their homework, whilst the Department of Health has failed in its duty of care and protection of the people?
Will you please address this point?
There are extremely numerous files on the complete lack of any evident difference in the dental state of fluoridated, and non-fluoridated countries, except for the instances of 50% fluorosis in the fluoridated areas. If you haven't studied them please tell me why not? I will provide them if you don't have them.
Your defence of my damage allegations seem to be rooted in York, with a refusal to examine the evidence from around the world which is overwhelming.
You will note Dr Briffa's comments about the York Study here:
"One of the most vocal critics of the study was Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University in New York state, USA [2]. Professor Connett had been one of the scientific reviewers for the York study prior to its publication. In his letter, he calls the authors of the York study to task for not making it clear that dental fluorosis is an indication of a toxic effect of fluoride. He also raises the question of what other enzymes and proteins fluoride may cause unwanted effects in the body that are not visible to the naked eye
Professor Connett went on to criticise the York study for downplaying the apparent link between fluoride exposure and risk of bone fracture. While the study authors conclude that there was no link between increased hip fracture in the elderly and fluoride exposure, Professor Connett shows how critical evidence of a link was seemingly ignored by the authors.
[AT whose behest, I wonder? Or were they just incompetent?.JRI]
Please note Professor Connett says fluorosis is the outward evidence of the toxic effect of fluoride, which is happenong in the body.
Here is the ouward sign of what is happening inside the body. and you are telling me that York concluded that fluoridation protects health? Then you tell me that the hexafluorosilicic acid is "pure", by which I take it you are stating it is pure unadulterated hexa fluorosilicic acid with only the permitted additions-[permitted by whom, to poison our bodies?]-of arsenic,cadmium, mercury and lead !!!
Hexafluorsilicic acid is one of the most dangerous poisons known to man, but it's good to know it is pure!! I think this is 1984 Government-speak to imply the word "pure" means good for you.
God! You must think we are all stupid !!
[Pictures not transmitted]
How dare you dismiss the appearance of fluorosis as of little concern to anybody? It is of major concern to any child growing up, and the costs of rectifying cosmetically are huge.That ignores the psycological damage to the child who isoften shown to be withdrawn and very sensitive to the state of his/her teeth, to the extent that they refuse to smile, and are always the subject of derision.
But that of course is not undoing the accumulating damage within the child which will continue until its later effects cause untold health damage.
Just stick the pictures on all leaflets and Town Notice Boards where you are seeking to introduce more fluoridation. That's democracy, OK? Then let the people decide.
Fluoride: can you stomach it?
Thanks to Professor (Dr) A K Susheela for the following scanning electron micrograph images and text.
no pictures]
Scanning electron micrograph of Gastro-intestinal mucosa of a normal healthy adult individual (control) showing;-
► columnar cells studded with microvilli on the cell surface.The microvilli are responsible for absorbing nutrients on the cell surface.
► The white mass spread around the mucosa is the mucus which helps in comfortable bowel movement.
2
Scanning electron micrograph of Gastro-intestinal mucosa of an individual suffering from "non-ulcer dyspeptic" complaints; consuming water contaminated with 1.2 ppm (mg/l) of Fluoride.
Note: The columnar cell surfaces are exposed (naked) as:
► microvilli are lost ► presence of scanty microvilli
► very little mucus secretion seen on the mucosal surface.
3
Scanning electron micrograph of Gastro-intestinal mucosa of an individual suffering from non-ulcer dyspeptic complaints; consuming water with 3.2 ppm (mg/l) of Fluoride.
Note: The columnar cell surfaces are exposed (naked) and appear:
► cracked ► no microvilli ► no mucus secretions are seen.
I have found a video for you and your Fluoride Deception Team to enjoy.Your constructive comments will be welcomed.
http://fluoridealert.org/bryson.htm.
I am delighted to see that the Hampshire CC has rejected Fluoridation unanimously, but I have no doubt the SHA will attempt by nefarious and underhand means, to get this decision of the people reversed.
You have an agenda, and with all of you it has nothing to do with the health of the people.
I repeat, hopefully for the last time, Systemic application of Fluoride has been overwhelmingly proven not to be beneficial, and will store up great health problems in the future.
I have to question your sanity, if you fail to comprehend this.
You are deliberately participating in the long-term poisoning of the people, and ignoring the wishes of the people.
Manchester has voted 95.8% against. Bedfordshire 81% against. Hampshire against.
This month's referendum figures from the US show that in votes taken in 67 communities, 79% of those communities voted against, and the people in all those Communities voted 88% against.
Do you understand the meaning of the word Democracy?
Your final comment was that you realised I would find your comments "disappointing". You're dead right there !! Because it is a pack of lies distorting the truth at every turn, and hiding the facts which prove the fallacy of your unprincipled position.
If the people want to poison themselves, it's an individual decision.They can smoke of they want to, but that doesn't mean you should spend £42 million on persuading everyone else it is good for them.
You ignore the fact that Fluoridation has been declared illegal by the EU, as it is a "medication", and as I have quoted before, no doctor would tell a patient he/she had never seen, whose medical history he/she knew nothing of, whose age was not declared, "Here is a medicine, containing at least 5 dangerous toxins. Drink as much of it as you like as often as you like."
He/she would be Struck Off" for serious disregard for his/ her patient's well-being.
It's quite possible they would be referred to a psychiatrist as well, before being reinstated into any position of trust.
Sincerely,
John Ivens
The Department of Health.
Dear Mr Demetris,
I wish to pursue just one item in your rambling email.
You state that the Government accepted the MHRA's opinion that fluoridation of the water supplies did not represent and could not be construed as "Medication".
Please give me your rebuttal, and that of the MHRA, of the following 3 statements of fact, WHICH CLEARLY STATE it is a medication, or medical procedure.
You will be prosecuted under EU Law provisions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The status of water fluoridation can be clarified by examining three basic statements of fact.
1. In England, fluoridation is not a permitted water treatment process under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000. Its legal status in both England and in the whole of the EU is that of a medical intervention, and fluoridation cannot be reclassified as a water treatment process.
2. Silicofluorides are not authorised substances under the Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive, governing the regulation of medicinal substances that may be used for Human medication in the EU. Their use with intent to medicate the general public is therefore unlawful.
3. The administration of any medicinal product to the public is governed by strict codes of medical ethics, reinforced by recent Community-wide Human Rights legislation. The imposition of fluoridation by any State upon its citizens is a serious violation both of universally acceptable medical ethics and of established legislation protecting Human Rights, and is remediable under European legislation."
So you are now proposing to spend £42 million of taxpayer's money to break EU Law,which is already poisoning 6 million UK citizens, and which you now intend to expand to other areas, such as Southampton, correct? Bearing in mind that all EU countries bar the UK, Ireland, and Spain, [with a minor infraction,] comply with this Law.
John Ivens.
Post a Comment