|
|
About Us Contact Us Useful Links Translation Site Map |
|
Infodocs Opinion Polls Pictures Propaganda Unethical Con. |
|
News Centre Press Release |
|
Political Register |
|
Dental Data Forums/Reviews Papers Statements |
|
Aus F News Copy List |
|
HREX |
|
f14: Endorsements Contrived, not properly researched and often not worth the paper they are written on. Endorsements come in two forms. The first is the 'professional' endorsement from scientific institutions and the second comes from those organisations who are not normally associated with the water fluoridation in any capacity whatsoever. Take for example the British Dental Association (BDA) and MENCAP. The BDA is an organisation which has a professional interest in fluoridation, for obvious reasons. However, MENCAP is a charity which is not associated with water fluoridation - it represents people who are mentally handicapped. Therefore, when the BDA endorse fluoridation it is because of their direct involvement with the effects of fluoridation. MENCAP's endorsement is based on 'scientific' claims made by organisations such as the BDA, amongst others. It is important to understand the difference between a qualified and an unqualified endorsement. But in the propaganda war, both have an important roll to fill - and I am going to give an example of how they neatly dovetail with each other. Imagine an upside-down pyramid. Pyramids tend to be very stable structures because of their design. But what happens when one is turned upside-down? The entire structure becomes unbalanced. Endorsements are 'constructed' using similar principles. Take a handful of 'qualified' endorsements from some prominent scientific institutions and then use them to solicit more endorsements from non-qualified organisations. The consequences are that many of the endorsements for fluoridation rely exclusively upon a very narrow and unstable foundation. What makes it worse for the pro-fluoride lobby is that some (if not all) of the 'qualified' endorsements, which are the cornerstones of the fluoridation campaign, are often unreliable or flawed in some way. This in turn means that the unqualified endorsements that have been made, and based upon such flawed endorsements, are rendered worthless. A QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT? Sometimes, qualified endorsements are not what they appear to be. In fact, they are not endorsements at all. Take for example the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI). If this were not such a sorry tale to relate, it would be humorous. The BSACI 'endorsement' of fluoride is one of the most misrepresented pieces of literature. A study into the possibility of an allergic reaction to the consumption of fluoride has been conducted by BSACI and their view is they do not see any problems with fluoride (what of all the claims to the contrary?). It is unclear exactly what research was carried out because there are no tests available for detecting allergy, apart from the so-called Patch test which is worthless in this situation. This has not stopped certain promoters of fluoridation wrongly claiming that the BSACI actually endorse water fluoridation. The BSACI have never said they endorse water fluoridation, they were only asked to do some tests - and yet a BSACI member has informed me that there are no tests for fluoride allergy!! Gerald Malone, former Health Minister, has stated in a written reply (see below) to Alex Carlile, ex-MP, that "validated methods" exist for the detection of fluoride sensitivity. However, the pro-fluoridation Department of Health (DoH) have stated in writing that not one single test exists for the detection of fluoride sensitivity! To further confuse the issue, a member of the DoH has stated that a 'method' does exist but he can't reveal what it is! If this is not enough to leave you completely confused, then also consider the following. The BSACI are members of the British Allergy Foundation (BAF) and they have approached myself and National Pure Water Association asking for help with locating a suitable method to detect fluoride allergy / sensitivity (see below)! To summarise, it appears there is a method for detecting fluoride allergy, but there isn't, but there again there is, and nobody outside of the DoH seems to know what it is! Is that clear? From: Alex Carlile QC MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON SW1A 0AA Parliamentary Office: 0171 - 219 3505 Fax: 0171 - 219 2610 Constituency Office: 01686 625527 Fax: 01686 628891 14 July 1995 Chris Holdcroft xx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx Worcester xxx xxx Dear Mr Holdcroft Thank you for your recent letter and information. Below is a transcript of Mr Carlile's question and reply from the Minister of State, Mr Malone: 14 June 1995 FLUORIDATION Mr Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if her Department will research the practicality of introducing a fluoride sensitivity test: and if she will make a statement. Mr Malone: Validated methods already exist for the investigation of suspected hypersensitivity. Fluoride is a normal component of food, and there is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluoride as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies. Yours sincerely
The British Allergy Foundation says ... 10 January 1996
Mr C Holdcroft xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx Worcester xxx xxx
Dear Sir, I was given your name by a representative of the National Pure Water Association, as as a person who may be able to supply me with information on Fluoride allergy/intolerance We at the British Allergy Foundation run a helpline and have received several calls relating to this subject. We have found it difficult to locate any published research on the topic, or to know how best to advise sufferers living with the problem. We would be grateful for any information or advice you could supply. Thank you in anticipation. Yours sincerely,
Sarah Gurr Helpline Co-ordinator
AN UNQUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT One way for the Government to bypass democracy and to ensure its policies are carried out without too much interference from local authorities is to set up non-elected local bodies. One example is Worcester Community Health Council (WCHC), who have shown a flagrant disregard to democracy. In September 1995, a meeting of the WCHC was the most disgraceful, biased and contrived meeting ever witnessed. The meeting was chaired by someone called Jean Eastgate. The entire discussion, and it was a short one, was debated and dominated by individuals who were pro-fluoride. Nobody was invited to the meeting to give the other point of view and if it were not for a certain member of the committee who noticed someone wanted to make a comment, then there would have been no contribution at all from the an opposing observer. The response to a very brief statement (the only one allowed) was casually dismissed by Mrs Eastgate. The meeting itself was made up of the following bodies. There was representation from local Government, from the local and regional Health Authorities, from local NHS trusts and from the local Family Health Services Association. Three members of voluntary organisations were also present on the committee. So how can such a collection of individuals take an impartial view of a subject when the deliberately bar those who can give the other side of the story? The vote that was taken on fluoridation after this short debate was also contrived. Mrs Eastgate merely asked if anyone on the committee opposed fluoridation, and nobody did oppose it. However, she did not ask the question fairly. Nobody was asked if they wished to abstain so therefore giving the false impression that everyone on the committee was convinced by the debate. Consider also that some of the committee members were only there to make up the numbers. Nearly half of them sat at the table with vacant expressions on their faces - not that it was entirely their fault. It is obvious that not having the opportunity to hear both sides of the story, they were unable to make an informed choice. Finally, the minutes of the meeting expose the Worcester CHC as being economical with the truth. The mention of Dr McCloskey answering many questions from members was stretching the truth a little but the real howler came at the end of the report which claimed, "this proposal was supported unanimously". The dictionary definition of the word 'unanimous'. The word means, and I quote, "... agreeing, one and all, in opinion and will: having the agreement, consent, support, of all". The pro-fluoride lobby were certainly unanimous but the rest of the committee were bewildered and did not dare to oppose the motion for fear of being ostracised. To sum up, this vote on fluoridation was no more than a rubber-stamping exercise and an out-and-out typical example of how a biased minority impose their politics on an unsuspecting community - and certainly not an endorsement of fluoridation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TRANSLATION | EDUCATION | NEWS | POLITICAL | SCIENCE | AFN | HREX | ABOUT [fluoride.org.uk] | CONTACT | LINKS | SITE MAP |