Bulletin #753

January 22, 2006

Dear All,

Things are hopping on the fluoridation around the world, as more and more people sense that 2007 is the year that the house of cards is beginning to topple. I will tackle these stories one country at a time. We start with a VICTORY in Israel.

Israel. News yesterday from Betsy Ramsey (Dr. George Waldbott’s daughter) that a town in Israel has stopped fluoridation after less than two years. Betsy writes:

“The details about Nes Ziona are that the community water system was first fluoridated in September 2005  and now in January this has been discontinued. This step which the Mayor of Nes Ziona has decided to take was a bold move on his part. It’s important to realize that, in spite of the recommendations of the Adin Committee it is still formally illegal not to
fluoridate. Therefore, every community whose leadership refuses or discontinues to fluoridate is acting in apposition to the law.

An interesting sidelight on the story about Nes Ziona is that the very name Nes Ziona means “miracle in Zion” in Hebrew! Actually, the real miracle is that we have two very ardent fighters against fluoridation residing in Nes Ziona, Ze’ev Shafir and Dr. Mordechai Hochberg, and their actions to bring an end to this procedure in their community have proved effective! Needless to say, these two fighters are not willing to settle for just their own community changing directions.”

New Zealand. News from the South Island that citizens in Ashburton and Christchurch are organizing to prevent the moves to re-fluoridate Ashburton’s water supply and use that to springboard into never fluoridated Christchurch, which has some of the cleanest drinking water in New Zealand. When I was there in 2000, local citizens told me that their water was so clean that they didn’t need chlorination. Needless to say those I spoke with were horrified at the thought that any one would be so misguided as to even suggest fluoridation, but then they didn’t count on the zealots in the Canterbury District Health Board, which includes the notorious Dr. Martin Lee, who misled officials in Ashburton with his false claims. Please send an email to Yvonne McDonald wishing her good luck in this effort at as well as to Don Church, who has done so much to educate the public in Ashburton on this issue .

Public meeting to fight water change

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3935493a7693.html>.

By JOANNA DAVIS - The Press | Monday, 22 January 2007

Anti-fluoride campaigners are gearing up to fight the possible introduction of the decay-fighting chemical into the water supplies of both Ashburton and Christchurch.

The Ashburton District Council has reopened the debate over fluoride after it realised decay levels in the town had leapt 25 per cent since fluoride was removed from drinking water in 2002 (this claim has not been substantiated in any peer reviewed publication. Moreover, 25% may represent a small fraction of a tooth surface in the context of current NZ decay rates which are very low, PC)

A binding public referendum will be held in Ashburton from February 16 to March 10.

Most of Christchurch has never been fluoridated, unlike most major metropolitan areas in New Zealand, but the Canterbury District Health Board is pushing for it as “the most cost-effective, practical and safe” means of reducing tooth decay.

The Christchurch Anti-fluoridation Lobby will hold a public meeting in Ashburton this week because of concerns a decision to fluoridate there could affect Christchurch.

Group co-convener Yvonne McDonald said the lobby objected to the “mass medication” of fluoridation, particularly as Christchurch water had no added chemicals.

Canada. We have learned that the article by Dr Gifford-Jones that appeared in the Ottawa Sun yesterday (see FAN bulletin #751) also appeared in the Toronto Sun.  This is important because any movement against fluoridation in Toronto would essentially undermine fluoridation in the rest of Canada.

Moving from Ontario to neighboring Quebec, we received this news from Gilles Parent, our FAN Mobilization Team representative in Quebec. He writes:  

“Tomorrow we are sending a letter signed by 6 dentists, a few Ph.Ds, and a few environment associations to the Quebec Health Minister demanding that his Ministry takes steps to inform parents of young children not to use fluoridated water for preparation of milk formula (or drinks). We have at least 19 signatures. “

United Kingdom. One of the problems for fluoridation fighters in the UK is that the UK government keeps funneling money to the promoters of fluoridation to continue their “education” campaigns. For years this money went to the British Fluoridation Society. More recently, the money is going to the National Fluoride Information Centre, hosted by Manchester University. In the exchange printed below, Liz Vaughan liz@vaughan200.fsnet.co.uk> and Doug Cross challenge Dr. Blinkhorn, who heads this pro-fluoridation front group, on the group’s impartiality, the purpose of a conference it is organizing (shades of the CDC-ADA jamboree in Chicago in 2005, where there was no attempt at presenting both sides of the debate even though a huge amount of public funding went into “educational” conference) and the legality of fluoridation under European law. This exchange is rather lengthy but well worth the read because – particularly with the legal aspects – it could have worldwide significance.

United States. Thanks to the diligent efforts of Gene Burke (Santa Monicans for Safe Drinking Water Coalition), the Santa Monica Daily Press, on Friday Jan 19, ran an important article entitled “Not all smiles for fluoride treatment” please check out http://www.smdp.com/site/archives/011907.pdf  and congratulate the journalist Kevin Herrera at kevinh@smdp.com and copy Gene Burke at .

Also from the US is news from NYSCOF that the CDC has slipped a warning on baby formula and fluoridated water on to its web site, but with no fanfare, no press release and no efforts to get this vital information to the people who need to get it: parents, pediatricians, local health officials and the WIC programs. It is fascinating how this agency, which gets world headlines for its outrageous and exaggerated claims for the benefits of fluoridation, can only muster a mere whisper on its health warnings! It is more and more obvious that this CDC, in the shape of its Oral Health Division, is really a disguised adjunct of the ADA. More on this later.

Phew! It is hard to keep up with all this and we haven’t even got to the end of January yet!

Paul Connett
———————————————————
The Vaughan(Cross) exchange with Professor Blinkhorn

(Blinkhorn responses in blue)

UK  COUNCILS AGAINST FLUORIDATION.
27 November 2006  
 
Dear Professor Blinkhorn,
 
 RE  NFIC CONFERENCE.

Further to my telephone conversation with your secretary last week, I have been instructed to contact you. The Joint Chairmen of UKCAF, Cllr Paul Clein of Liverpool City Council, who holds the education portfolio and has responsibility for childrens’ services, and Cllr Professor John Whitelegg of Lancaster City Council who is also a Professor at the University of York, are concerned at the evident bias in NFIC’s conference plans.
 
We have examined the agenda and list of proposed speakers for your up-coming conference in Manchester and find it to be unbalanced.  

You have an exclusively pro-fluoridation line-up, which fails to reflect the profound divisions within the scientific community over water fluoridation.  There is no mention on your agenda of the legal implications, the costs, or the adverse effects of fluoride on health.  In view of the apparent incompatibility of the Government’s  fluoridation policy with EC legislation on foods, food additives, medicinal  products and the advertising of unlicensed medicines, the absence of a  balanced legal assessment of what is actually permissible represents a serious flaw in the scope and reliability of the proposed conference.
 
The NHS (National Health Service. PC) is currently in deep financial crisis, yet you appear to be advocating the imposition of a heavy burden of extra costs that may in fact be an improper use of treasury funds if fluoridation were to be declared unlawful. UKCAF is concerned that precious public funding should not be diverted into fluoridation feasibility studies, to the detriment of acute patient services, when there is no realistic prospect of funding new fluoridation start-ups in the foreseeable  future.
 
As the NFIC conference is organised using public money, we feel it should fairly present all sides of the argument. UKCAF is prepared to offer you two speakers to balance your agenda. Please let me know as soon as possible whether you wish to take up this offer.
 
Councillor Liz  Vaughan
 
Information officer,  UKCAF
————————————————
November 28, 2006.

Dear Councillor Vaughan

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

I think you have misunderstood the nature of this conference. Contrary to your understanding, the conference is not in any way concerned with current debates regarding the pros and cons of water fluoridation schemes. Instead, the conference has been specifically organized to discuss aspects of researching water fluoridation, evaluation and surveillance. This topic has been chosen because of the research suggestions made by the York and MRC Reports.

If we are examining the issue of fluoridation per se then I would have prepared a different programme and made this explicitly clear when promoting the event.

NFIC has been charged with invigorating fluoride research, hence this conference which is actually concerned with how to develop the research expertise needed to consider water  fluoridation schemes.

I am sure you support this approach which questions current perceived wisdom and seeks to improve the quality of the studies produced in this important area.

I trust this clarifies the situation.

Anthony  Blinkhorn

Professor A S  Blinkhorn
Professor of Oral  Health
School of Dentistry
University of Manchester

————————————————
  
Dear Professor Blinkhorn,
 
Thank you for your reply to my email.
 
I have not misunderstood the nature of your conference, in fact we at UKCAF understand only too well your need to attract research  grants to keep your centre in business. The York Review recommended new research five years ago; such recommendations have long been overtaken by Dr Elise Bassin’s extremely worrying conclusions on the induction of osteosarcoma in young boys brought up in fluoridated areas.
 
The recent statement by the American Dental Association that fluoridated water should not be used to reconstitute baby milk has  resulted in several water companies in USA stopping fluoridation. In great part this is due to the absence of any reliable safety margin for this toxin, particularly infants, and the impossibility of ensuring that there  s any effective dose management for all those members of the public exposed  to it. I am sure that you are well aware of this all too rare  instance of social responsibility and ethical behaviour on the part of these local authorities; they are, of course, substantially equivalent  to the Local Authorities that my organisation represents.
 
You cannot credibly remain unaware of the abundant  published scientific evidence identifying adverse effects of fluoridation, even at the ridiculously termed ‘optimum level’ of one  miligramme per litre. I am therefore bemused by your reference to “surveillance and evaluation” - it implies that although 10% of the UK has been fluoridated since the sixties, subsequent surveillance and evaluation of the effects of fluoridation on exposed populations remains inadequate to identify those benefits that those promoting fluoridation, including yourself, are so keen to claim for it.
 
Any medical experiment that fails to establish the postulated claims after over forty years of exposure of such a huge number of subjects (willing or not) is surely an admission that the putative benefits remain impossible to substantiate with any measurable degree of  confidence.
 
In fact, it is also an admission that the expansion of  fluoridation - whether through actual public water fluoridation schemes or on an experimental (’fact finding’) basis - constitutes medical research.  Unfortunately, as I have already indicated to you, it employs a toxic  substance for which no Marketing Authorization has been issued by the MHRA; it  is illegal to use such substances in medical interventions without the  consent, informed or otherwise, of even one dissenting individual - let alone  on a very large proportion of the target populations. You are perfectly  well aware that the administration of any unlicensed substance with medicinal  intent without the existence of such an Authorization is in fact a criminal  act. State-brokered administration of such a substance to the public is in  violation of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act protecting the public from unauthorised medication (and please do not attempt to rely upon the  irrelevant Jehl-Doberer case in support of arguments purporting to reject the  application of the Human Rights Convention in the issues raised by  fluoridation).
 
The ethical implications of holding a conference aiming  to extend public exposure to fluoridation when the practice is both illegal  and unethical is surely an issue that your Research Ethics Committee  should be aware of before any attempt is made to extend the scope of any  proposed medical research in this field? ‘Further research’ implies that those  undertaking it are prepared to proceed in the absence of the  mandatory Authorization for the administration of the proposed substance to a  target population.
 
I note with great concern that no valid informed consent  has even been sought, let alone obtained, in all existing instances  of unrestrained public dosing of this pseudo-medicine; the recent  legislation purporting to provide public consultation is shambolic and highly  misleading, and will not materially affect the imposition of future  fluoridation projects, regardless of its apparent concessions. The ‘UK  Councils Against Fluoridation’ has an overwhelming public mandate from  those whom they represent to demand that all State-sponsorship of this  unproven, unauthorised and unethical procedure should be halted  immediately.
 
I find it particularly alarming that none of the subjects, once exposed to this cumulative toxin, will be able to withdraw completely from the proposed ‘research’ - like those already contaminated by existing schemes, they will carry the excess administered to them, over and  above their normal background exposure, for the rest of their lives. Yet the ability of any subject of medical research to withdraw is absolutely demanded under all relevant Codes of Medical Ethics.
 
Failure to comply with the constraints imposed  on such research raises issues of both ethics and liability that  need to be urgently addressed by the University Medical Ethics Committee.  Failing this, the legal sector and the Courts will undoubtedly address  the criminal issues raised, should those proposing this ‘new’ research feel able to proceed regardless.
 
If you continue to believe that it is proper -  or, indeed, prudent - to continue to advance research into a State-ordained procedure that is in violation of several European Directives, as well as  of Medical Ethics, the Human Rights Act and Convention, and of the  Criminal Code, then I feel duty-bound to inform you that my organisation will ensure that all appropriate regulatory sectors will be fully informed of the  issues raised by your planned activities in the continued promotion of this  illegal assault upon the public. I urge you to review your position with urgency, and cease promoting this unethical research forthwith.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Cllr Liz Vaughan. Information Officer.
UK Councils Against Fluoridation.
 
Copies to EHO’s, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, David Crausby MP,  Andrew Lansley MP, David Webb MP, Tim Farron MP, Andrew Gwynne MP.
 
Paul McCormick Barrister at law, Dr Paul Connett at FAN,  chairmen and Information Officers UKCAF. Medical Advisors at UKCAF
———————————————
January 08, 2007

Dear Councillor Vaughan

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

As far as I am aware, fluoridation in the UK is not illegal.

This conference is being undertaken in good faith and is concerned with how scientists need to develop the research expertise necessary to consider water fluoridation schemes.

I am sure you support this approach which questions current perceived wisdom and seeks to improve the quality of the studies produced in this important area.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

Anthony Blinkhorn
—————————————————————

Friday, January 19, 2007

Dear Professor Blinkhorn,

Thank you for your correspondence of 8th January 2007.

Your statement “As far as I am aware fluoridation in the UK is not illegal”.

Presumably if you are organising a conference in Manchester using public money and seeking research grants you should check your facts and seek legal advice particularly with regard to EU law!  ”Good faith” is not sufficient grounds for organising a conference “with how scientists need to develop the research necessary to consider water fluoridation schemes.”

Although you claim to lead a Fluoride Research Centre, you are obviously completely unaware of the recently published scientific research in peer reviewed journals further discrediting water fluoridation.  Are you aware that, in November, the American Dental Association issued a public warning to parents not to make up baby milk formula with fluoridated water? Do you intend to post this advice on your website, or otherwise make it available for UK parents to read?   

The recently published research in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34(4) 299- 309 by Stephen Levy shows that children consuming fluoridated water in their first four years risk dental fluorosis in their permanent teeth (they are particularly vulnerable in their first year of life).  Will you be posting this finding on your website?  The Elise Bassin research on the increased vulnerability to osteosarcoma of boys aged 5-10 years consuming artificially fluoridated water extends the period during which children should be protected.  You seem to feel that we should be supporting you: when you publish the advice to parents that fluoridated water is unsafe for babies and young children up to age 4, and for boys up to age 10, and call for the urgent discontinuation of water fluoridation in the UK, we will support you.  Otherwise we will retain the impression that you are completely reckless regarding the public’s health.  It is irresponsible to promote a conference on the lines you describe using public money.

We also question your connection to reality.  The cost of setting up new fluoridation plant at water treatment works is in the region of £5 million per plant.

There are 22 water treatment plants in the Greater Manchester area alone.

The NHS is falling apart at the seams for lack of money.  Face it: it just isn’t going to happen.
It is obvious that you wish to keep your little empire going, together with jobs for your mates - who wouldn’t - but we are talking here of wasting public money on an obsolete white elephant.  Fluoridation is over.  In these circumstances, your conference is simply preposterous.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Liz Vaughan.  UK Councils Against fluoridation.
……………………………………………………………………..

Concurrent with this email Liz Vaughan, together with Doug Cross, submitted a more formal complaint (in hard copy) to Professor Blinkhorn, which they have circulated to several MPs.

Professor A S Blinkhorn OBE
Director
National Fluoride Information Centre
University of Manchester
Coupland 3 Building
Manchester
M13 9PL

Dear Professor Blinkhorn,

We regret that you appear to have misunderstood our concern regarding your proposed Conference on ‘Researching water fluoridation; Evaluation and Surveillance’ at the end of this month. In Cllr Vaughan’s earlier letter we identified the legal violations of the European Community legal frameworks covering medicines, foods and drinking water quality by the current UK legislation relating to the fluoridation of public water supplies using fluorosilicates. Our central point was simply that it cannot be ethically acceptable to carry out any medical research on the general population when the procedure involved in fact constitutes a criminal action.
 
Any ingestible substance is either a food or related product or a medicine. Any product supplied with the intent to medicate MUST be classified as a medicinal product, and its distribution and use is subject to marketing authorization from the MHRA. Efficacy and dilution are not relevant legal issues. Fluorosilicic acid has for many years been added to water with the sole objective of prophylaxis, yet the MHRA perversely persists in refusing to recognise its medicinal purpose and status. The practice is   therefore contrary to European law, and as such unethical. It is also a criminal offence to administer any substance with medicinal   intent if that substance does not have appropriate authorization.
 
Alternatively, if you wish to postulate that fluoridated water remains a food purely because it has no MHRA authorization - surely a circular argument! - then it is also a criminal offence to add to it as a mineral supplement to any food if it is derived from a   substance that is not included in the definitive list of mineral sources included in Annex II of the food supplements Directive.
Fluorosilicates are not permissible sources of the mineral fluoride.

Water is legally a food, but in the case of fluoridated water, the Drinking Water Directive clearly states that drinking water quality standards do not apply to medicated waters, which are regulated solely under the Medicines legislation.

Notwthstanding its supposed legalisation under recent the Water Act, water fluoridation schemes as practiced in the UK are unlawful,   since they employ an unlicensed medicinal product. Attempting to attribute scientific respectability to them by the use of such a misleading term as ‘research’ is a purely political objective, and alarmingly reminiscent of a related programme of ‘research’ carried out on the use of fluorides in modifying human behaviour in pre-war Germany.   The database on the effects on the public of  large-scale water supply fluoridation is extremely large, yet the source of these data - the uncontrolled dosing and inadequately monitored of an unlicensed medication - does not provide a credible basis for epidemiological assessment.

The objective of your Conference to examine ‘Evaluation and Surveillance’ is therefore highly questionable. Evaluation of specific data sets by the carefully controlled application of   medical statistics has already demonstrated the inherent inadequacies, if not downright deliberate misinterpretation, of the risks and adverse effects of such chaotic ‘medical research’ involving public fluoridation schemes. To quote only two current examples, the deliberately suppressed exposure of Prof. Chester Douglass’ supposedly reassuring data on osteosarcoma in young males by his student Elise Bassin, and the current uproar in the Public Health Sector in the USA over the absence of a safety margin for fluoride ingestion by infants both illustrate the absurdity of attempting to make respectable supposed ‘research’ into massively incompetent programmes of public exposure to this cumulative endotoxin.

We understand that financial support for this Conference may be derived from the public purse, either directly or indirectly - we have heard that support my be available to delegates from as far afield as Australia. We are fully aware of the political implications of the Government’s fluoridation policy, which is purely designed to give the public the impression that something (anything!) is being done to improve the disastrous NHS dental sector services. We therefore challenge the probity of diverting any public sector funding to the support of such an unjustifiable activity, particularly in the present context of swinging cuts in NHS funding and staff lay-offs. The true cost of expanding water fluoridation schemes in the UK will be at the multi-million pound level, even in relatively small implementation areas - diverting such mis-directed expenditure back into the core NHS dental sector would undoubtedly provide far more cost-effective support to a service that is in desperate need of mainstream support.  (Emphasis added.)

Cllr Vaughan represents a very large number of Local Councils throughout the country, in all of whose areas the public support for unfluoridated water is in excess of 90%, despite the heavy (and technically illegal) public sector promotion of fluoride in all its forms - all told, this is a public of many millions who would be extremely relieved not to be subjected to this unethical and unwanted medication of their basic water supply.  Should you feel that the arguments offered here justify a review of the probity of examining further options for expanding, or even continuing, ‘research’ on public water fluoridation schemes, you can be assured that you would have the support of ourselves, the Councils that we represent, and the many millions of general public for whom we speak.
Yours sincerely,

Cllr. Liz Vaughan, Information Officer, UK Councils Against Fluoridation
Douglas Cross,   MIBiol, CBiol, EurProBiol.  Environmental Analyst; Advisor to UKCAF.

Copies to: Rt Hon Rosie Winterton MP; Rt Hon Jack Straw MP; David Crausley MP; Andrew Lansley MP; David Webb MP; Tim Farron MP; Andrew Gwynne MP; Paul MacCormick, Barrister at Law; Dr Paul Connett, Fluoride Action Network; Cllr. Prof. John Whitelegg, Chairman, UKCAF; Cllr. Paul Clein, Chairman UKCAF