Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 19 July (WA 266) and 14 September (WA 64), whether they now intend to commission an organisation without significant links to the dental profession to prepare and publish periodic systematic reviews updating the worldwide evidence on water fluoridation following the York review in 2000, rather than to monitor and evaluate specific effects of fluoridation or conduct government-commissioned research projects.[HL12348]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We are aware that the Australian Government's National Health and Medical Research Council published a further systematic review in 2007. The department constantly reviews what work it will commission. The department's National Institute for Health Research welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including water fluoridation. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government why vaccination, which confers a degree of immunity on adults other than those vaccinated, requires individual informed consent, whereas fluoridation, which confers no such benefit beyond the individual, does not. [HL12351]
19 Oct 2011 : Column WA76
Earl Howe: Vaccination is a medical treatment using a medicinal product, while drinking fluoridated water is not a medical treatment involving a medicinal product.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In 1983 Lord Jauncey ruled that
Section 130 (of the Medicines Act 1968) defines ‘medicinal product’ and I am satisfied that fluoride in whatever form it is ultimately purchased by the respondents falls within that definition.”
And this is the noble Earl that claims that the Health and Social Care Bill, transferring our healthcare to our Councils, is compatible with the Convention on Human Rights!
I have written to the SHA several times asking what definition they apply to fluoridated water as it is not, in their opinion, a medicinal product. Their response, every time, is to repeat the line that the SHA notes the 'opinion' of the MHRA that as fluoride occurs naturally in some water supplies, they do not consider the chemicals added to drinking water to be a medicinal product. I have also been informed that individual rights must be sacrificed for the common good that fluoridation brings to the community.
Obviously they have no understanding of the science and have conveniently chosen to ignore or misinterpret the ruling by Lord Jauncey in order to avoid the irritating inconvenience of having to seek individual consent to this mass medication.
Post a Comment