Health Supreme by Sepp Hasslberger

Networking For A Better Future - News and perspectives you may not find in the media

Networking For A Better Future - News and perspectives you may not find in the media

Health Supreme

News Blog

Site Map





Food for Thought


Human Potential






The Media

War Crimes


Articles Archive


See also:


Communication Agents:

INACTIVE  Ivan Ingrilli
  Chris Gupta
  Tom Atlee
INACTIVE  Emma Holister
  Rinaldo Lampis
  Steve Bosserman
  CA Journal


Robin Good's
Web sites:












The Individual - Human Ability:


Society - Politics:






July 31, 2003

Fluoride and Old Lace


The UK government is pushing to lace drinking water with fluoride

The way is being prepared by a law which will exempt water companies from legal responsibility for adding an industrial poison to communal water supplies. The International Fluoride Information Network, in its latest bulletin, says that "unfortunately, it is too late to influence the House of Lords who incredibly voted to modify the water bill to allow water companies (which fluoridate) to be exempt from litigation."

But there is also some good news. "... the latest issue of The Ecologist has printed two hard hitting articles on the dangers of fluoridation, so at least some people will be warned."

I find it incredible that at a time where most countries have abandoned fluoridation of drinking water with the industrial toxic-waste form of fluoride, the UK is pushing to re-introduce a "public health" measure that is extremely controversial and that was first used in Nazi Germany to "soften the brain" - make people more malleable.

One would think we could learn from history - if not from science.


IFIN BULLETIN: IFIN # 815: News from the UK.

July 30, 2003

Dear All,

The news from the UK keeps flooding in as the Blair government attempts to foist fluoridation on an unsuspecting British public. The two local news reports printed below fall into a familar propaganda pattern (and the Blair government is good at propaganda). Local dentists or dental groups use largely unpublished small studies of dental decay (with little or no control for economic level which is a more critical predicter of tooth decay than lack of fluoride) to hype the magic bullet of water fluoridation. They nearly always work in percentages which completely obscures the minimal (if any) saving in tooth surfaces involved, even if such savings were actually statistically significant, which they often are not. For example the famous Brunelle and Carlos study from 1990 (the largest ever carried out in the US looking at 39,000 children in 84 communities) found a saving of 18% of the tooth surfaces (average for 5-17 year olds) living all their lives in fluoridated as opposed to non-fluoridated communities. This was championed by the authors as demonstrating the benefits of fluoridation. However, hold the applause, not only did they not report a statistical significance (if any) of these results but the 18% saving amounted to only 0.6 of one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth - in other words an absolute saving of less than 0.5% of their tooth surfaces!

And what are the risks? None according to the expert quoted in one of these articles, "Dr Garnett said she had no evidence to suggest fluoride had any adverse health effects." Which is another way of saying that she hasn't read the literature.

Fortunately, the latest issue of The Ecologist has printed two hard hitting articles on the dangers of fluoridation, so at least some people will be warned. Unfortunately, it is too late to influence the House of Lords who incredibly voted to modify the water bill to allow water companies (which fluoridate) to be exempt from litigation. Peer pressure?

This issue of The Ecologist also contains an excellent article by Sally Fallon on the important work of Dr. Weston Price who showed among things that so called "primitive peoples" had excellent teeth and health prior to the imposition of Western sugary diets.

There is also a short book review (printed below) of what looks like a very interesting book containing a chapter on fluoridation. The book is called," Abuse your illusions: The Disinformation guide to media mirages and establishment lies."

Paul Connett.

1) Leyland Today, July 30, 2003

Health chiefs call for fluoride boost

HEALTH bosses are calling for fluoride in water supplies across Chorley and South Ribble to be boosted to stop childrens' teeth rotting.

Dental experts say the area has only seen a three per cent improvement in the number of missing, decayed and filled teeth, compared to a national improvement of 11 per cent.

And they are worried the districts won't be able to meet the 2003 national target of an average of no more than one decayed, missing or filled tooth per 12 year old.

Now they want to increase the levels of fluoride in water supplies.

In a report to the Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust, public health director Shelagh Garnett and consultant in dental public health Gary Whittle, recommended the board support fluoridation.

They say in seven wards in Chorley and six in South Ribble, each child would have an average of at least one and a half fewer teeth affected by decay if the water was fluoridated.

Fluoride is partially absorbed into the enamel of the teeth, helping it resist acid from sugary food.

The experts say this would reduce the number of children suffering from pain and swelling and cut down on the 400 general anaesthetics administered yearly for tooth extractions.


The trust board will now work with local authority officials to gauge public opinion on the matter.

But a move to fluoridate the water would prompt a protest from the National Pure Water Association and the North West Council Against Fluoridation. They claim fluoride is the toxic waste of the phosphate industry and a part two poison.

But Dr Garnett said she had no evidence to suggest fluoride had any adverse health effects.

She said: "Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral. We are not suggesting putting something in that isn't there. We are suggesting raising the level of a natural substance.

"Fluoride alone won't have any effect - it must go hand in hand with a better diet and better oral hygiene."


2) The Sentinel, July 29 2003.



12:00 - 29 July 2003

Five year-olds in North Staffordshire are plagued by nearly three times higher levels of tooth decay than their peers in other parts of the region.

The findings come from a damning survey carried out by the Dental Health Promotion Group exploring youngsters' dental health problems.

They show North Staffordshire is among the bottom three districts in the West Midlands for poor teeth among five-year-olds.

But the figures are even more worrying for children living in the north of Stoke-on-Trent - the area covered by North Stoke Primary Care Trust - where 54 per cent have tooth decay.

In Newcastle and South Stoke the statistics look a little better, with 57 per cent and 60 per cent of children respectively being free from tooth decay.

The Staffordshire Moorlands has the best record for the north of the county with only 32 per cent of five-year-olds having decayed teeth.

But compared to other parts of the region - particularly Cannock Chase and East Staffordshire where just 21 per cent of children have tooth decay - the numbers are still a concern.

Burslem South councillor Terry Crowe said: "This report is very concerning and I think more needs to be done to educate parents about how they can help their children look after their teeth.

"There just doesn't seem to be enough leaflets and information available. The majority of parents probably do all they can and may not realise that they could be doing more. I believe education is the key to improving these figures in the future."

Now the study has prompted renewed calls for fluoridation of the area' s water supplies.

On average, a group of 100 five-year-olds in North Staffordshire will have 152 teeth which are decayed, extracted as a result of decay or filled compared to just 61 teeth in a similar group in the south of the county.

Around two-thirds of people living in South Staffordshire have either wholly or partly fluoridated water, but there is no fluoridation scheme operating in the north.

Kate Taylor, North Staffordshire consultant in dental public health, said: "This latest study confirms yet again the benefits to dental health which come from fluoridated water.

"Staffordshire is a perfect example of the difference in levels of tooth decay between a fluoridated and non-fluoridated area."

Children in North Stoke again have the worst record for the number of decayed teeth, with a group of 100 children having 213 teeth decayed, missing or filled.

Figures for Newcastle and South Stoke are not much better with a similar group of five-year-olds having 147 decayed teeth in both areas. This compares dramatically to just 52 teeth per 100 children in Cannock Chase.

Burslem North councillor John Lamingman said he was surprised by the poor figures for North Stoke.

He said: "It is worrying, but I put it down to three factors, a lack of fluoride in the water, a lack of education for parents and poverty."


3) THE ECOLOGIST, July, 2003.

Hard to swallow

Two weeks ago it emerged that Mr Blair is backing secret moves to force water companies to fluoridate drinking water, whether the industry likes it or not. In other words, he is proposing to mass medicate the people of this country. This is not - as you might imagine - to prevent some terrible, crushing health risk like smallpox, but to improve the quality of our teeth.

Tooth decay is a nuisance, but it's hardly the stuff of nightmares. Fluoride, on the other hand, may well be; and, according to countless studies around the world, it doesn't even work. In the US, where 65 per cent of the population are routinely subjected to the chemical, the worst tooth decay occurs in poor neighbourhoods of the largest cities - the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades. And when fluoridation was stopped in parts of Finland, East Germany, Cuba and Canada tooth decay actually decreased.

But even if it did work, drinking fluoride to prevent cavities is like swallowing bandages to cure a broken arm. To solve tooth decay the government has opted not for a campaign against the undisputed culprits - like fast food and sugar - but for mass medication with a useless medicine.

Fluoride is not just a useless medicine. It is also highly toxic; so toxic, in fact, that in 1984 Procter and Gamble admitted that a small tube of its Colgate toothpaste 'theoretically. . . contains enough fluoride to kill a small child'. Given the fact that a third of US children living in fluoridated areas have white specks (or, in more serious cases, dark stripes) across their teeth - a sure sign of fluoride over-dose -, the implications are alarming.

Last year the director of the University of Toronto's Preventative Dentistry department, Dr Hardy Limeback, announced that he had profoundly corrected his profluoride position after reviewing the available literature. It must have taken him some time.

Fluoride has been linked to cot death, eczema and Alzheimer's. It has been shown, at low doses, to cause genetic damage. It has even been blamed by doctors from the US's National Cancer Institute and National Health Federation for 35,000 cancer deaths every year.

And because fluoride disintegrates collagen, an essential structural component in skin, muscle, ligaments and bone, big question marks are being raised over its possible contribution to arthritis - a problem that now affects a staggering 70 million Americans.

Other reports are appearing with increasing regularity that link fluoride consumption to increased hip fractures among the elderly.

Still further studies have linked fluoride use to hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid glands), which is one of the most widespread medical problems in the US - affecting more than 20 million people - and leads to fatigue, weight gain, depression and heart disease. The suggestion of such a link is hardly radical; fluoride used to be prescribed by European doctors to depress the activities of an overactive thyroid.

But what is shocking is that fluoride was ever considered for mass medication. It has always been a source of contention. Indeed the first ever lawsuits against the US government's nuclear bomb programme (the so-called Manhattan Project) concerned fluoride, not radiation. What is more, the first health tests for fluoride, conducted by a Dr Dean, were designed to establish how much of the substance industry could afford to release into the environment without damaging human health.

In the summer of 1943 a group of New Jersey farmers reported that something was 'burning up' their peach trees, maiming their horses and cattle and killing their chickens. The source of their ills was a nearby DuPont factory that was producing millions of pounds of fluoride for use in the Manhattan Project. Immediately following the war the farmers filed a suit against DuPont and, without realising it, triggered alarm bells throughout the government. At the time, the Manhattan Project's chief of fluoride toxicology studies, professor Harold C Hodge, asked his superiors if there 'would be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride through lectures on fluoride toxicology and the usefulness of fluoride in tooth health?' As we now know, that is exactly what happened - with the effect that fluoride was magically transformed from a killer to a panacea.

Some years later Dr Phyllis Mullenix, formerly the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, conducted animal studies that showed fluoride was a powerful central nervous system toxin - even at low doses. Her results were published, and Mullenix was startled when the US National Institute of Health rejected her conclusions out of hand and terminated her grant.

Mullenix's research was not as original as she thought, however. Similar studies had been carried out by dentists involved in the Manhattan Project; the results had demonstrated a 'marked central nervous system effect' from fluoride. A version of the study was published in 1948, but, according to the investigative journalists who uncovered the original, it was 'censored to the point of tragicomedy'. While the published version reported that the factory workers studied exhibited fewer cavities, the original reported that most of them no longer exhibited any teeth at all.

Since then, the most widely known study into the benefits of water fluoridation was conducted in New Zealand between 1954 and 1970. The so-called 'Hastings experiment' is still quoted by fluoridation advocates today. But it failed to meet the most basic criteria for scientific objectivity; not least because the decline in tooth decay that the community in the study experienced was also seen in non-fluoridated communities in the region. The then mayor of Auckland, Sir Dove Myer Robinson, described the Hastings experiment as a 'swindle'.

Tragically the people the British government ostensibly wants to help most - ie, the poor - are the very people who will be worst hit by fluoride contamination. Studies by the American Dental Association in 1957 and the Canadian National Research Council in 1977 showed that 'people with inadequate dietary intakes are likely to be more "at risk" as a consequence of long-term low-dose fluoride ingestion'.

The British government's public health and water ministers, respectively Hazel Blears and Elliot Morley, recently issued a letter in which they suggested with breathtaking arrogance that 'those who remain adamantly opposed would be able to use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking water'. But why should we have to? If people want to subject their children to a highly suspect industrial poison, they are free to do so, on their own terms. That is the position of virtually every country in Europe.

Even if it did work, drinking fluoride to prevent cavities is like swallowing bandages to cure a broken arm

Copyright Ecosystems Limited Jul/Aug 2003


Health: Water fluoridation

WATER FLUORIDATION The government is planning to fluoridate the UK water supply in the belief that it will reduce tooth decay. Such a move would represent the compulsory medication of a toxin.

By Layla Dayani

Drug on tap

Cabinet papers leaked to The Sunday Times early in May revealed government plans to fluoridate drinking water in England and Wales. The reason given for this move is that it would reduce tooth decay among children in 'deprived' areas.

Until now it has been up to the water companies to decide whether to add fluoride to the water supply. Not wanting to face possible litigation, the industry has been reluctant to do so. Now, a proposed amendment to the Water Bill would shift that responsibility to health authorities.

Anticipating opposition to what amounts to compulsory medication, water minister Eliot Morley and public health minister Hazel Blears said: 'Those adamantly opposed [to water fluoridation] would be able to use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking water.'


Fluoridation is the addition to drinking water of chemicals based on the element fluoride, purportedly to protect growing teeth in children. The chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water, silicofluorides, are a toxic waste product from the phosphate fertiliser industry. They are unprocessed hazardous waste containing a whole host of toxic substances - including arsenic, mercury and lead - not found in pharmaceutical grade fluoride.


1 teaspoon of fluoride is enough to kill a human being

11 percent of the UK's population currently receive fluoridated water

30 to 50 per cent of children suffer from dental fluorosis (excessive fluoridation) in optimally fluoridated communities

85 per cent of the tooth decay suffered by children would be unaffected by fluoridation

98 per cent of countries in western Europe have rejected fluoridation

100 times more fluoride in fluoridated tap water than breast milk

7:1 the ratio of the incidence of bone cancer in fluoridated to non-fluoridated areas


1 Fluoride is a toxic substance

* It is the active ingredient in most pesticides. Just over two grams (roughly a teaspoon) is enough to kill an adult; 300 milligrams is enough to kill a child.

* In the US people have died and many have been hospitalised suffering from fluoride poisoning, when faulty fluoridation equipment has pumped excess fluoride into the water.

2 Fluoridation is unnecessary

* Western Europe, which is 98 per cent unfluoridated, has experienced a similar decline in cavities as the heavily fluoridated US and today enjoys the same low level of tooth decay.

* Fluoridation is largely ineffective at preventing 'pit and fissure' decay, which accounts for more than 85 per cent of all dental decay.

* Most people receive the 'optimal' one milligram per day of fluoride without ever drinking a glass of fluoridated water.

3 Fluoride causes infertility

* Fluoride wreaks havoc on the reproductive system. It renders sperm non-functional and increases rates of infertility. A recent study conducted in the US found increased rates of infertility among women living in areas with three or more parts per million fluoride in the water.

4 Fluoride is a cumulative poison

* Nearly half the fluoride we ingest each day accumulates in our bodies primarily in the bones, but also in soft tissues. High levels cause a crippling bone disease known as skeletal fluorosis.

* Fluoride stimulates abnormal bone development. Clinical trials report that high-dose fluoride treatment increases bone mass, but that the newly formed bone is 'structurally unsound'.

5 Fluoride depresses thyroid function

* Up until the 1950s, European doctors prescribed fluoride to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for people suffering from overactive thyroid. Hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid) is currently one of the most common medical problems in the US.

6 Fluoride is a neurotoxin

* A December 2000 study found fluoridated water was associated with elevated levels of lead in children's blood, which is in turn linked to a variety of neurological problems - including aggression, hyperactivity and reduced intelligence.

* Studies from China have found an association between elevated fluoride exposure and decreased IQs in children.

7 Fluoridation is unethical

* It contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, which sets out the criteria for medical intervention. Water fluoridation denies the right of the individual to refuse or give consent to any medication involving their person.

8 Fluoridation is illegal

* The compulsory provision of medical treatment contravenes the 1998 Human Rights Act. It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.


France: 'Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of chemicals for drinking water treatment]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.' Louis Sanchez, head of environmental standards for the city of Paris, August 2000

Belgium: This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope) in the future.'

Christian Legros, director, Belgaqua, Brussels, February 2000

Norway: 'In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated.'

The National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, March 2000

Austria: 'Toxic fluorides have never been added to public water supplies in Austria.' Manfred Eisenhut, head of water at Gass Wasser, Vienna, February 2000

Czech Republic: 'Since 1993 drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:

* uneconomical - only 0.54 per cent of water suitable for drinking is used as such; furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking;

* unecological;

* unethical [because of lack of consumer choice]; and

* toxilogically and physiologically debatable; fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation that disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups.'

Dr B Havlik, minister of health, the Czech Republic October 1999

Copyright Ecosystems Limited Jul/Aug 2003

Abuse your illusions: The Disinformation guide to media mirages and establishment lies
Source: "Ecologist, The"
Publication date: 2003-07-01
Arrival time: 2003-07-29

Abuse your illusions: the Disinformation guide to media mirages and establishment lies. Edited by Russ Kick Disinformation 2003, L17.99 ISBN 0971394245 Abuse your Illusions is a compilation of essays debunking several of the myths of modern society. With sections on the truth about fluoridation, the horrors of the diamond trade and secret nuclear tests on humans, this book will shake many of your beliefs to the core. With contributors including William Blum, Greg Palast and Howard Zinn, Abuse Your Illusions reminds us how irrelevant most of the mainstream media really is.

Here some recent news just received:

1 August 2003

In the UK, despite an Amendment to the new Water Bill seeking to make fluoridation compulsory, which will be voted on in the House of Commons on 8 September, in recent weeks the following Councils have stated their official positions on water fluoridation. This should send a warning to Parliament that their actions are being closely watched.

Liverpool City Council - re-affirmed their opposition to fluoridation.
Bradford City Council - re-affirmed their opposition to fluoridation.
Lancaster City Council - re-affirmed their opposition to fluoridation.
Brighton City Council - affirmed their opposition to fluoridation.
Calderdale Council - re-affirmed their opposition to fluoridation.

Best to all - read some terrific News just received from


FOUR VICTORIES and more from South Korea.

August 1, 2003

Some very exciting news from Korea just in from the Korean National Coalition Against Fluoridation. Not only have four city councils (Chongju (pop. 500,000), Pohang (pop. 500,000), Gwacheon (pop. 70,000) and Uiwang) stopped fluoridating their water but also the KOREAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION as well as the KOREAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION have withdrawn their support for this practice.

This news, coming a few months after Basel, Switzerland halted fluoridation after 41 years of the practice, is further evidence that this practice is losing what little international support it ever had. The English speaking countries are getting more and more isolated in their obstinate pursuit of this obsolete form of medicine.

Related articles

Behavioral Effects of Fluorides

Fluoride - no thank you

Toxic fluoride soon unnecessary

Prominent researcher apologizes

Avoid Fluoride

Hidden Sources of Fluoride: Pesticides

Debunking Fluoride "Experts"

How we got fluoridated - an interesting time line!


posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Thursday July 31 2003
updated on Wednesday December 15 2010

URL of this article:


Related Articles

Fluoride in your bones - cancer ahead
As the legislative battle rages in Great Britain over adding fluoride to the drinking water, with opposition from Greens and Mulsim, we hear from Ireland that last year, a study has established a definite link between the mineral in drinking water and bone cancer. Jennie Gorman from Australia has picked up and forwarded this important information and some discussion on the practice of fluoride in drinking water, which I would... [read more]
September 10, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

Debunking The "So Called" Fluoride "Experts"
Heard Dr. Neil Farrell's (Middlesex London Health Unit) interview with Erika Ritter on 2003/06/10, CBC's Ontario Morning program supporting the use of water fluoridation. It, yet again, boggles my mind to hear this "so called expert" espousing on the efficacy of ingesting fluoride. His reason to maintain toxic substance in London's water is: and I quote "I believe fluoride in Water prevents carries" We are to take it that this... [read more]
June 12, 2003 - Chris Gupta

WHO to review Fluoride Guidelines
Robert Pocock of VOICE, a campaigner for healthy drinking water, and specifically against the addition of toxic fluoride to the water supply, has said that the WHO is revising its Fluoride Guidelines, which were introduced in a rather clandestine manner. There may be just too much information coming to light about fluosilicates, a particularly nasty poison which is actually an industrial waste, and which in some countries is added to... [read more]
January 24, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger

Food, Not Fluoride, Reduces Cavities
This is a good follow up on the earlier post: "Spin Doctoring: Toxins - Fluoride" as it always boils down to food but they can't make any money with this most effective of all remedies... Chris Gupta ------------------------------------------- Food, Not Fluoride, Reduces Cavities (CONTACT LETTER TO YOUR OFFICIALS INCLUDED) From New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation July 2004 Cavities occur in 66% of U.S. preschool children, and more often... [read more]
July 15, 2004 - Chris Gupta

Spin Doctoring: Toxins - Fluoride
Here is a book that further expands on the post 'Fluoridation Revisited' discussion of Spin doctoring: ..."The drive to encourage public acceptance of fluoride was handed over to Edward Bernays, known as the father of PR, or the original spin doctor, and the man who helped persuade women to take up smoking. "You can get practically any idea accepted," Bernays explained, "if doctors are in favour. The public is willing... [read more]
June 09, 2004 - Chris Gupta

WHO Ignores Science, Questions - Recommends Toxic Fluoride
When the World Health Organization in its most recent issue of Drinking Water Guidelines recommends that fluoride should never be missing from our water, is it really doing the bidding of the Sugar Industry? Certainly dental caries is promoted by our consumption of sugar and sweets, including soft drinks, and the economic interests behind these junk foods are enormous. Fluoride provides a convenient "red herring" to put our attention on... [read more]
April 12, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger




Readers' Comments

A comment, received by e-mail from James Swayze and my reply


Perhaps is a better page to reference than the 'paranoid times' millenium page. (the link has gone bad, but I found and linked another page explaining fluorosilicate or rather silicofluorides: - Sepp)

There may be something to this but I still need more information. Specifically I need to know if fluorine rather than fluorosilicate is harmless where the latter is the problem. Then it remains only to stop using the silicates and continue the beneficial fluoridation.

My reply

Excellent article, James,

and thanks for sending the link. I have used in the fluoride post.

Here is what Robert Pocock from Ireland - he works with the Clean Water Association people - says about the fluorosilicates:

A word of background on this Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children. Dr Schuld usually displays the most rigorous scientific correctness in typical German manner. However in this discussion the PFPC is hung up on all forms of ingested fluoride regardless of type.

While I am also totally against ingesting it, I believe that the anthropogenic types such as the silicofluorides added to drinking water are much more objectionable from a biochemical point of view than the monofluoro compounds used in say toothpastes ( which are not intended to be swalllowed anyway).

The relatively high retention by the body of silicofluoride ingested from drinking water is the key reason why it must be taken out of public water (apart from the fact that it can not be avoided except at great cost to the consumer).

If fluoride is added to toothpastes or to salt, then the consumer can read the label and avoid the fluoridated product.

The main purpose is to have its addition into drinking water under the EU Drinking Water Directive stopped as soon as possible. After that battle is won , then we may turn our attention to fluoridated salt but not before.

It is important to recognise the real threat and not get lost in other less important ones ...."delenda est Carthago"

I tend to agree - first things first, and the industrial-waste silicofluorides seem to present the biggest problem.

If they are confirmed as dangerous - which I believe to be likely - then compulsive water fluoridation is on its way out, because it is more an issue of economics than health. Monofluoride compounds such as used in toothpastes are comparatively expensive and I doubt they would be dumped into the water supply where typically only half of one per cent reaches the intended target.

The fertilizer industry finds itself with a toxic waste product (fluorosilicates) which it has available in great quantity and which must be expensively gotten rid of. What better way than to "sell" us the toxic waste for our obliging health authorities to lace drinking water with. Perfect solution to an environmental problem - feed the stuff to the people.

Kind regards

Posted by: Sepp on August 2, 2003 05:40 PM


Received from National Pure Water Association, 20 August 2003.

The Professor, the MP and the 'dodgy dossier' on fluoridation.

Unable to rebut statements from his constituents and others, many of which were published in the Bolton Evening News, Dr Brian Iddon, MP, a fervent proponent of water fluoridation, wrote to British Fluoridation Society Chairman, Professor Michael Lennon, for answers.

Dr Iddon sent Lennon's reply to Paul Clein in a last ditch attempt to defeat the Liverpool pharmacist who had persistently challenged him on fluoridation.

Mr Clein, who is also Chair of Education at Liverpool City Council, said, "I was amazed when this pack of lies came through the post. I don't think Iddon had even bothered to read it, because it also contained an unsubstantiated potential libel against an American lawyer."

Robin Cook, MP, two Lords and a couple of Baronesses are named as Vice Presidents of the British Fluoridation Society. Did the names on the letterhead assure Dr Iddon of the credibility of the BFS?

In his letter, the Professor strongly cautioned the MP against referenda, "There are serious difficulties associated with informing the public at large about the pros and cons of complex issues." ("At least he admitted that there ARE 'cons' attending the fluoridation issue!" said Paul Clein.).

Addressing Dr Iddon's query about "religious objections" to fluoridation, Professor Lennon was reassuring. "There must be many millions of Muslims worldwide (including in the West Midlands) who are happily consuming fluoridated water. However, we will check this more thoroughly with colleagues in the West Midlands and Saudi Arabia." Dr Iddon could have contacted his own Muslim constituents, or the local Imam, who would tell him what the Koran has to say about water. (He could even have done a simple internet search and found the following article).

A Government Amendment to the new Water Bill, which comes before the House of Commons on 8 September, seeks to force water companies to artificially fluoridate drinking water supplies on the say-so of Strategic Health Authorities. MPs and health authorities have been briefed on the 'benefits' of fluoridation by the Government-funded British Fluoridation Society.

According to the website of WaterUK, the water companies want Government to grant them "civil and criminal indemnity," if they are forced to fluoridate.

Water customers across the UK are furious that many MPs are not listening to their objections. More than a quarter of a million people have already signed the National Register of Objectors to Water Fluoridation, held by the NPWA.

Bolton Councillor Bob Ronson has been opposed to fluoridation for many years. "The rights of people not to be medicated or treated against their will is an inalienable human right," he said. "Furthermore, as the Government's own, supposedly 'once and for all' review showed, the benefits of fluoridation have certainly not been proven." .

Paul Clein said, "There are far better ways of treating tooth decay without administering hazardous industrial waste which has no medicinal license - with no chance of ever getting one - to entire populations via their kitchen taps. Water fluoridation is a mad policy. "

A spokesperson for North West Councils Against Fluoridation, Cllr Liz Vaughan, said: "What kind of MP would have the gall to vote to mass medicate the people of this country? In 1985, 399 cowardly MPs abstained from voting and allowed the Water (Fluoridation) Bill to pass. Two thirds of the electorate were effectively disenfranchised on that day. If they do it again, I hope they pay the price at the next General Election."


Jane Jones, Campaign Director, National Pure Water Association.
Tel: 01226 360909.

Posted by: Josef on August 22, 2003 02:06 PM


Security code:

Please enter the security code displayed on the above grid

Due to our anti-spamming policy the comments you are posting will show up online within few hours from the posting time.



The Individual Is Supreme And Finds Its Way Through Intuition


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

These articles are brought to you strictly for educational and informational purposes. Be sure to consult your health practitioner of choice before utilizing any of the information to cure or mitigate disease. Any copyrighted material cited is used strictly in a non commercial way and in accordance with the "fair use" doctrine.



Enter your Email

Powered by FeedBlitz



Most Popular Articles
Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy

Lipitor - The Human Cost

Fluoride Accumulates in Pineal Gland

Original blueprints for 200 mpg carburetor found in England

Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US

Aspartame and Multiple Sclerosis - Neurosurgeon's Warning

'Bird Flu', SARS - Biowarfare or a Pandemic of Propaganda?



More recent articles
Chromotherapy in Cancer

Inclined Bed Therapy: Tilt your bed for healthful sleep

European Food Safety Authority cherry picks evidence - finds Aspartame completely safe

Did Aspartame kill Cory Terry?

Retroviral particles in human immune defenses - is AIDS orthodoxy dead wrong?

Vaccine damage in Great Britain: The consequences of Dr Wakefield’s trials

Archive of all articles on this site



Most recent comments
Uganda: Pfizer Sponsored AIDS Institute Snubs Natural Treatment Options

Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy

AIDS: 'No Gold Standard' For HIV Testing

Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy

'Global Business Coalition' Wants More Testing: But Tests Do Not Show AIDS



Candida International

What Does MHRA Stand For??

Bono and Bush Party without Koch: AIDS Industry Makes a Mockery of Medical Science

Profit as Usual and to Hell with the Risks: Media Urge that Young Girls Receive Mandatory Cervical Cancer Vaccine


Share The Wealth

Artificial Water Fluoridation: Off To A Poor Start / Fluoride Injures The Newborn

Drinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic

Democracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride

"Evidence Be Damned...Patient Outcome Is Irrelevant" - From Helke

Why Remove Fluoride From Phosphate Rock To Make Fertilizer


Evolving Collective Intelligence

Let Us Please Frame Collective Intelligence As Big As It Is

Reflections on the evolution of choice and collective intelligence

Whole System Learning and Evolution -- and the New Journalism

Gathering storms of unwanted change

Protect Sources or Not? - More Complex than It Seems



Islanda, quando il popolo sconfigge l'economia globale.

Il Giorno Fuori dal Tempo, Il significato energetico del 25 luglio

Rinaldo Lampis: L'uso Cosciente delle Energie

Attivazione nei Colli Euganei (PD) della Piramide di Luce

Contatti con gli Abitanti Invisibili della Natura


Diary of a Knowledge Broker

Giving It Away, Making Money

Greenhouses That Change the World

Cycles of Communication and Collaboration

What Is an "Integrated Solution"?

Thoughts about Value-Add




Best sellers from