(Link to petition the Prime Minister on this Downing Street Online Petition)

MEDICINE OR POISON?

If an infant were drip-fed arsenic in small quantities every day of his life, it would, of course, be child-abuse or even murder. While our children will not be force-fed arsenic, they will, however, be force-fed something EQUALLY as poisonous. Arsenic stands beside another poison in the register of the 1972 Poisons Act.

This Poison is known as FLUORIDE!

It doesn’t matter whether the people consent to it or not, recent amendments to laws — the 2003 Waters Act (Section 58) — permit Strategic Health Authorities to dictate the mass medication of the people — essentially, without their consent.

While our children will not be force-fed arsenic, it is planned, however, that we are all (adults and children alike) to be force-fed fluoride via our drinking water.

The Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority is one of the first Strategic health Authorities to use their new legal powers to mass-prescribe the fluoridation of the people. The fluoridation of Manchester’s drinking water is due to commence very shortly — this Summer. Shortly to be followed by London and then ultimately, the remainder of the UK. The people get NO choice!

Hexafluorosilicic acid/fluorosilicic acid is marketed, by its for-profit suppliers, as good-for-your-teeth FLUORIDE. However, “good-for-your-teeth-fluoride,” it is not. It is actually a chemical waste by-product of the fertilizer industry — and the same fertilizer manufacturers sell it to our government, at a HUGE profit, to add to UK drinking water.

There is a general misunderstanding in society with regards to fluoride — a misunderstanding which permits authorities and governments to be lured into the misleading sales pitches of for-profit “fluoride” producers: Only a few will know that there is actually no such substance as “fluoride.” We do have, however, an element called Fluorine — a pale yellow gas and a deadly poison. “Fluoride,” while it is actually a misnomer, is the generally used word (used even by scientists) to describe any and all substances containing HIGHLY TOXIC fluorine.

Even though “fluoride” in any form, is not a basic requirement of the human body (contrary to what we are told by profiteers and their commissioned scientists), the public, nevertheless, would have less to say if we were being sold naturally occurring calcium fluoride. But, it is intended that we are to be “medicated”, via our drinking water, with something far, far more toxic than naturally occurring calcium fluoride. And this is where “fluoride” really becomes a serious issue.

Fluorides are NOT registered medicines and are therefore, NOT regulated by any governmental regulatory agency. Because of this, certain manufacturers of some fluorides are permitted to falsely market their chemical wastes as being ‘good for your teeth,’ when, in fact, there is NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that these corrosive, toxic wastes have any health benefits at all. However, there are numerous evidences which demonstrate Fluorides’ extreme toxicity.

Fluorides are registered part II poisons under the 1972 Poisons Act, alongside arsenic and other well-known poisons.

The Fluoride which is added to UK drinking water — hexafluorosilicic acid/fluorosilicic acid — is a listed UN Hazard class 8 (corrosive) substance.

The International Safety Card states, “Hexafluorosilicic acid releases hydrogen fluoride when evaporated, so it has… risks. It is corrosive and may cause fluoride poisoning; inhalation of the vapors may cause lung edema. Like hydrogen fluoride, it attacks glass and stoneware.”

Fluorosilicic Acid’s “Chemical Dangers” according to the International Safety Card are [quote]: “The substance decomposes on heating producing toxic fumes including hydrogen fluoride . The solution in water is a strong acid, it reacts violently with bases and is corrosive. Reacts with water or steam to produce toxic and corrosive fumes. Attacks many metals forming flammable/explosive gas (hydrogen - see ICSC 0001)…. dissociates almost instantly into silicon tetrafluoride and corrosive and toxic hydrogen fluoride.”

Hexafluorosilicic acid/fluorosilicic acid (also known as silicofluorides) are banned in almost every other EU country for failing safety standards.

Hexafluorosilicic acid/fluorosilicic acid is highly corrosive and highly toxic. The World Health Organisation’s International Chemical Safety Card, in reference to hexafluorosilicic acid, states: “AVOID ALL CONTACT” and should there be such contact, “IN ALL CASES CONTACT A DOCTOR!” (N.B. These warnings are stated in Upper case when the remainder of the document is in lower case.) And under the “Spillage Disposal” section of the same document it states, “Do NOT let this chemical enter the environment.”

But this exact same chemical is about to enter, not merely the environment, but our drinking water — Manchester’s drinking water.

Strong Influential Support and Profit

Consider these facts:

Yara Industrial is a world leading manufacturer of fertilizers.

Hexafluorosilicic acid/fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of that fertilizer industry

Hexafluorosilicic acid/fluorosilicic acid is highly corrosive and highly toxic and is therefore an extremely expensive-to-dispose-of chemical waste.

Yara Industrial sells this same corrosive, toxic waste to governments, for the fluoridation of drinking water!

Yara Industrial provides “fluoride” (i.e. hexafluorosilicic acid) to the majority of fluoridating water companies in the UK.

Yara Industrial is about to provide Manchester’s drinking water company, United Utilities, with this same corrosive, toxic chemical waste — which is due to commence over the Summer (2009).

From this, one can easily see that the “dumping” of hexafluorosilicic acid/fluorosilicic acid is convenient for certain chemical industries whose waste by-products are otherwise extremely expensive to dispose of. Not only is it convenient, it is also a highly profitable solution to the waste disposal problem when tax-payer’s money is used to purchase this chemical waste from such chemical companies for the purpose of “medicating” our drinking water. With this in mind, one begins to understand why there is such strong and influential support in favour of water fluoridation. But, we should ask ourselves, is this “strong support” from the affected consumers of this “medicated” water, or is this “strong support” merely from those who profit???

This hexafluorosilicic acid is so corrosive it cannot be stored in glass or metal containers (it is so corrosive that it is used in such industries as glass etching and to bind and harden concrete and so on) and more than £14 million of government money has already been poured into the Manchester fluoridation programme for the purpose of pipe preparation, etc.. However, we should ask that our government cut their (our) losses and put a stop to this extremely dangerous programme which serves only to benefit its profiteers.

The Dumping of Toxic Waste into UK Drinking Water is a CRIME, Whether it is “Legal” or Not:

Recent amendments to laws — the 2003 Waters Act (Section 58) — have resulted in an intended human rights violation against the Manchester residents. The Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority et al, have been lobbying our government for many years to change laws in favour of compulsory mass-fluoridation of drinking water, because THE WATER AUTHORITIES AND THE PEOPLE PREVIOUSLY REFUSED TO CONSENT TO IT. Laws have now been amended which permits an authoritarian approach to the situation and it now doesn’t matter whether the people consent to it or not, Strategic Health Authorities now have the right to dictate the fluoridation of drinking water without our consent.

The Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority have failed to truly carry out their legal duty to consult the affected consumers — the people of Manchester — for the purpose of ascertaining that those affected consumers support the fluoridation of their water supply. Those consumers have NOT been provided with relevant facts pertaining to this type of “fluoride,” nor have they been informed that the substance they are to be force-fed is actually a corrosive, toxic chemical waste by-product of the fertilizer industry sold for a huge profit. Norhave affected consumers been informed that there are no conclusive tests which prove this corrosive, toxic chemical waste to be even safe for human consumption. The affected They (Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority) have failed to truly carry out their legal duty to consult the affected consumers — the people of Manchester — for the purpose of ascertaining that those affected consumers support the fluoridation of their water supply. Those consumers have NOT been provided with relevant facts pertaining to safety issues related to the consumption of this corrosive, toxic chemical waste and have not been given an opportunity to say NO. The people of Manchester do not support this mass medication.
consumers have not been given a fair opportunity to say NO. The majority of the people of Manchester do NOT support this mass-poisoning.

An Absolute-Rule Approach

Is it a democratic practice to permit Strategic Health Authorities to dictate and compel water companies to pour this industrial waste into the people’s drinking water in the name of “medicine” (even when it is NOT a registered medicine), without the public being made even remotely aware of the toxicity and potential consequences of these substances, AND so, without their informed consent?

As fluorides are NOT registered medicines, then they simply are NOT medicines, no matter what vested interests try to make us believe. However, these non-medicines are being prescribed in the guise of medicines. And more importantly, they are being prescribed to the masses without diagnosis and without consent.

Some people might desire fluoride, but if the medication of some individuals is required, it must be on an individual basis, NOT as MASS-MEDICATION. It is illegal in English law to medicate someone against their will. Additionally, to force-feed — not to permit individual choice — is a violation of human rights and it is, therefore, expected that our democratic government assist its people by protecting them against such human rights violations.

When considering whether to continue granting the sole rights of authority to the Strategic Health Authorities with regards to mass fluoridation of the UK populaces, our government should consider the following key information with regards to fluorides:

Fluoride is a main ingredient in Prozac — a mind-altering psychiatric drug (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride), prescribed by GPs and Psychiatrists.

Fluoride is the key dumbing-down ingredient in Sarin Nerve Gas (nerve agents are categorized by the United Nations as “Weapons of Mass Destruction”).

Fluoride is also a poison of choice against cockroaches and in some of the most effective (i.e. most toxic) rat poisons.

Fluorides were added to the water in Soviet and Nazi concentration camps — clearly, the Nazis were NOT concerned about tooth decay!!!

Fluoride is currently added to some US Penitentiary Centres (Prisons) to make inmates more controllable.

With the above information in mind, we should pose the question: Is it even safe, given the current climate on terrorism, to permit any one organisation to have sole control — absolute rule (without any independent overseeing regulatory body) to dictate, with or without public consent, the mass-prescription of this known toxic substance?

Overdose

The suggested ‘one part fluoride to every million of water’ (”one part per million” or 1ppm) is based on a miscalculation of the recommended 1mg daily dose which was set in 1945. This original recommended dose of 1mg of fluoride per day was based on the assumption that the average person consumed four glasses of water per day, it was therefore suggested that fluoride content in drinking water should be “one part per million” so that those four glasses of water could provide the 1mg dose. However, no consideration had ever been given to the likelihood that one might consume more than four glasses of fluoridated water per day, nor that one consumes other additional beverages prepared with fluoridated water, nor that food is cooked in fluoridated water — all in addition to the average four glasses of water per day. Thus, fluoride consumption in fluoridated areas are in excess of eight times greater than the originally intended 1mg daily dose.

What’s even more vital, a bottle-fed newborn baby consumes more than four glasses of water a day (in baby formula) and given their body mass, this would be a huge overdose for such a tiny body. And what about diabetics, who, as one of their symptoms, require higher than average amounts of water? Or even, what of those individuals who drink plenty of water to be healthy? And old people (many of whom don’t even have teeth), whose aged bodies are no longer able to effectively fight off toxins? And what of those who suffer from kidney disease, whose weakened kidneys are unable to flush out these ingested toxins. There are already cases on record where such individuals have died as a result of consuming fluoridated drinking water. Or merely, what of those hot, summer days, when our bodies tell us we need more water, is it also telling us we need more poisons, too?

The lethal dose of fluoride, where immediate hospitalisation is required — potentially leading to death — is 5 mg of fluoride per kilogram of body mass. This is the same amount contained in an average tube of fluoride toothpaste. But because 50% of all ingested fluorides are PERMANENTLY deposited into the body’s skeletal structure (i.e. bones and teeth), an accumulation takes place and therefore, this lethal dose is far, far exceeded when consumed over a lifetime. If fluoride is added to our water supply, will our children live to see our own current ages? Do we have to wait and see? Are we to experiment on our children because proponents of fluoride insist “there is no documented evidence to suggest it is harmful to humans…?” Are we not obliged to observe the “undocumented” (due to a lack of interested investment), but yet, actual statistics already available regarding the toxicity of fluorides?

What Use is “Healthy Teeth” in a Poisoned, Sick or Dying child?

So, WHY is this toxin being added to our drinking water? It is suggested that it is because of the “compelling evidence” which boasts that fluoride is “good for teeth” and “helps prevent tooth decay.” There is some evidence that fluoride retards the development or the activity of decay-causing bacteria. But, it is important to understand that this decay is only retarded — delayed. What’s even more vital to know is that ALL living cells, whether bacterial, animal, vegetable or human, are all extremely sensitive to fluoride. In other words, ALL living organisms, including humans, are retarded by fluoride!!!

Statistics are unreliable when taken out of context

The one, single statistic which has been promoted by proponants of fluoridation as being “evidence” in favour of fluoridation, is that of the “Decayed, Missing or Filled Teeth (DMFT).” This is the statistic reported by dentists, worldwide, to governing Dental Associations. But we need to observe that one of those referred-to statistics is “MISSING TEETH” (i.e. Decayed, Missing or Filled Teeth) and dentistry, over the years, has had its “fashions” in removing healthy teeth. One such “fashion” we are all aware of, was that many of our parents/grandparents had all their teeth removed, often in their teens and early twenties, and were then fitted with dentures. Not necessarily because ALL teeth were decayed, but because it was easier (long term), cheaper and because dentures were, at that time, “state of the art.” Then moving on in time, the next generation (around 1970s) saw children routinely having at least 8 healthy teeth removed with the explanation, “evolution has caused mouths to be too small to cater for a full set of teeth…” (This is, incidentally, is not true as most people who have attended PRIVATE dentists have a full set of teeth — they all fit!) And today’s “fashion” in NHS funded dentistry (not so with many private dentists) is to remove four teeth when only one is decayed (eg. if a lower left molar is decayed, the corresponding right molar and the two upper corresponding molars are often also removed). Another current practice is to remove (usually four) healthy teeth for the purpose of fitting braces. And so, the MISSING teeth statistic is not always an indicator of bad dental hygiene. What’s more, the practice in one UK region, with regards to dentistry, is not always the practice in another region. All these erroneous interpretations of the British Dental Association’s statistic of “Decayed, Missing or Filled Teeth (DMFT) has permitted the proponents of fluoridation to mislead both the public and also our government into believing there is a need for drastic medicinal measures.

Add to this, the fact that proponents of water fluoridation tend to publish DMFT statistics in a fluoridated area as compared to a poorer DMFT statistic in a non-fluoridated area. Such proponents of fluoridation publish their selected statistics without releasing other vital, contributing factors. A prime example of this would be that of a comparative report on fluoridated Hartlepool and non-fluoridated York — Hartlepool having the better statistic. The omitted information was that York’s Rowntrees chocolate/sweets factory was the main source of employment in York at the time of this survey. And also at that time, Rowntrees permitted its employees to, not only consume as many sweets as they liked while at work, but also permitted employees to take home all the damaged/waste sweets for their friends and family. Yes, York’s DMFT statistic was dreadful at that time but, clearly, not because of a deficiency of fluoride — as was promoted.

It should also be borne in mind that an overwhelmingly high number of fluoride-free areas have significantly better DMFT statistics than those of fluoridated areas, and that there is absolutely no evidence anywhere which conclusively shows mass-water-fluoridation to improve the incidence of tooth decay in a town or area (contrary to the false reports of pro-fluoride propogandists).

Too Late to Change the Plan?

More than 14 million pounds of Government funds have already been poured into one, single programme — the Manchester programme — but it is not too late to cut our losses and pull out. Many petitions are being put to our members of Parliament, urging them to cut their (our) losses and pull out before the inevitable poisoning of huge numbers of innocent people. The petitions urge our Prime Minister to consider ALL facts and not to permit this mass-poisoning of the people, albeit in the name of “tooth decay prevention” for a small percentage of the population. Our government is asked to consider the children, both present and future, who will consume higher doses, in ratio to their body mass, of this extremely toxic, corrosive drug — from infancy, all the way through their lives — those children who are, of course, this country’s future workforce and our next generation of leaders.

Here is the link for the 10 Downing Street Online Petition
Or, write to your Local MP.

****************

Quotes from respected individuals who have spoken out against mass fluoridation:

“I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.” — Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd (Past President of the American Medical Association)

“fluoridation … it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has. ” — Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D. (Microbiology), Discoverer of streptomycin & Nobel Prize Winner.

“Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never. In fluoridated areas, people should never use fluoride supplements. We tried to get them banned for children but (the dentists) wouldn’t even look at the evidence we presented” — Dr. Hardy Limeback (biochemist and Professor of Dentistry, University of Toronto, former consultant to the Canadian Dental Association).

“What is the matter with your scientists that they allow your government to be so stupid?” — Professor A.K. Susheela (author of over 100 published scientific papers) October 4, 1998, commenting on the UK government’s support for fluoridation.

“The level of fluoride the government allows the public is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports. People can be harmed simply by drinking water.” — Dr. Robert Carton, Ph.D (former Environmental Protection Agency - Scientist [20 years] Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998)

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity, and other effects.” — Dr. William Marcus, Ph.D (Environmental Protection Agency Scientist, Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998)

Article by
Tony and Caren Pickering