2 Nov 2013

What's worse - contractual or criminal breaches of law?

What's worse - contractual or criminal breaches of law? Make up your mind about fighting fluoridation!
The argument rolls on - to fluoridate Southampton or not? And still the interminable debate centres on a minior legal loophole rather than the real objection - illegal public medication. So think about this.
Under European food law the only substances that are allowed to be used to add the so-called ‘mineral’ fluoride to a food - including water - are the fluorides of sodium and potassium. All other sources of fluoride are banned.
Yet our moronic government has passed laws that allow a different source chemical to be added to our water - fluorosilicic acid. So the English law is inconsistent with the over-riding framework of European law. And that’s serious.
A water company that does add this substance to its product - which is supposed to be a food - can be challenged. The only ‘escape clause’ available to it is to admit that fluoridated water is no longer a ‘food’ but a medicine, (which it is!) We all know this to be true, as do he water companies too.
But this substitute product is not licensed to be supplied as a medicine, so putting it into the public water supply and effectively forcing us, the public, to consume it would be another criminal offence - Catch 22!
So why not stop merely delaying things by quibbling over some trivial point of contract between a defunct Strategic Health Authority and .Southern Water, and go for the Big One? Adulterating a food with a prohibited chemical in order to produce an illegal medicine, and then administering it to every living soul in the City, is a far more serious concern - just ask your lawyers if they don't agree!
This is by far the most direct and serious threat to the government's new super-QUANGO Public Health England, and also to any private sector water company that it might order to carry out this covert medical assault. This is the one line of attack that can force an end to this (and a string of previous) government’s dangerous obsession with poisoning the public in the bizarre name of ‘public health’.

Dr Thomas Stockmann

No comments: