Letter to Evening Post by one of our supporters - also next Safe Water meeting in Stroud is 1st Feb - contact us for details.
R King of Fishponds says, “Brown (Gordon Brown) should listen to China and get some ideas on how to run this country….” Could be good advice!
One idea he needs to confront is the dichotomy between millions more of us having poisonous silicofluorides in our water supplies on the pretext of better dental health for our children; and their on-going record of school achievement.
The Chinese have found a correlation between high levels of fluoride, even naturally occurring Calcium fluoride, and depression of IQ scores. It can be a pre-natal condition and is irreversible for life.
19 points on the scale can separate the accomplished academics from the ‘easy riders’ and in China that is simply not acceptable. In the Peoples’ Republic, all must excel; and the annual graduate output can tolerate no compromise.
In India, similarly affected, measures are in hand to remove all fluorides before they reach the consumers.
As recently as last year, Gordon Brown said “I want British education to be the best in the world.”
So lets make a start on it Gordon, by cancelling all fluoridation schemes and shelving plans for more; including the Avon counties and Hampshire which have surfaced within recent misguided NHS strategies.
Then he should reinvest the £42 million, set aside for pointless public consultations, in real health measures while clawing back the tens of thousands of pounds that he, as chancellor, handed over to the bigoted arch-promoter, The British Fluoridation Society.
Bernard J Seward
Member :
Bristolians Against Fluoridation
Hampshire Against Fluoridation
Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Friday, 22 January 2010
Paraquat, fluoride, Southampton decision and more
Who, among the gardening fraternity, remembers Paraquat weedkiller?
We can only remember it as it is now banned from sale and use; and quite right too because it is a very poisonous chemical with no known antidote.
Occasionally, however, a case of accidental exposure makes the news where it has been foolishly decanted into an un-labelled bottle or flask and left for years on a shelf from which it may be mistakenly identified as a health or leisure drink.
Even putting the bottle to one's lips, then hastily discarding it, has led to fatal consequences.
So how would you feel about that poison, or another quite like it, listed as Class 2 under the Poisons Act 1972, being added, with the blessing of our National Health Service, to your tap water?
Don't answer that question for the moment. Consider another which has already been put thousands of people in, or around cities or regions where the public health administration, urged by the UK Department of Health, plans to introduce a water fluoridation scheme.
Q. Would you agree to have fluoride added to your drinking water so that children can have better teeth?
That, on its own, seems like a reasonable proposition but anyone ticking the YES box puts their own life and health; and that of their nearest and dearest, severely on the line. It also compromises their long-standing right to refuse medication; that or anything else the state may decide upon in the future.
The 'fluoride' (fluorine compound) to be used for that purpose H2SiF6, a fluorosilicate, stands alongside Paraquat in the poisons register. Knowing that, would you still tick the YES box? 72,000 people in Southampton recently said they wouldn't by voting NO to the fluoridation scheme proposed for their city, via a public petition prefaced by a printed declaration reliably attributed to Gordon Brown, "The people must be allowed to decide..."
Those well-informed Hampshire residents and water consumers were not allowed to decide because their health policy decision-makers, the South Central Strategic Health Authority members - all 12 of them - rode roughshod over their vote and decided for themselves that a NO answer was unacceptable; and that fluoridation just had to be good news for everyone, including, of course, the children, even highly vulnerable infants.
In the county of Cumbria, a leaked document revealed that its Director of Public Health had actually instructed his health officials to vote in favour, regardless of public opinion; a crooked 'mailed fist' strategy, hurried along by our Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham, who has told authorities to 'get on with it' without awaiting the outcome of public opinion surveys. Not exactly a vote winner in the democratic election stakes but Burnham's crude outburst and the irony of it has seemingly passed unnoticed.
One of the features of the fluoride legislation was that each Primary Care Trust should request a feasibility study with the water supply company. This can turn out to be a meaningless gesture because once that request has been filed, the commitment becomes obligatory; a 'done deal'. Second thoughts, like those which occurred to the PCT members at Portsmouth who decided against being tied to Southampton's scheme, fearing long term pollution of The Solent, but wished to be re-consulted, were given a frosty response by the SHA; their chairman being de-selected from office. That was his reward for exercising democratic choice; the same treatment dispensed to Southampton folk who had exercised their own brand of democratic choice.
Since then, a surprise has surfaced. Using the Freedom of Information Act, a Southampton citizen has discovered the figures given for decayed, missing and filled teeth in that city were different from those published in the consultation document. Southampton's dental health statistics fall well inside the NHS limits and that city has no need of a fluoridation scheme. Poisonous chemicals do not need to be added to its otherwise clean, uncontaminated water supply. One wonders to what kind of song sheet the SHA sings that it should insist on forcing its hand on the matter?
Concurrently, as reported in the Dursley Gazette 29.10.2009, children in South Gloucestershire have some of the healthiest teeth in the country. Let us hope that its public health director Dr Chris Payne feels disinclined to be carried along on the wave of betrayal of public opinion by applying for a feasibility study simply to stay friends with neighbouring authorities who have swallowed the Government rhetoric inherited from the USA. That is where fluoridation was launched in 1946 as a military atomic waste disposal route; a classic case of secretive fly-tipping to avoid hugely expensive neutralisation charges. Massive cancer deaths followed.
Three award-winning scientists have described fluoridation as "probably the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century" a contention endorsed by 13 Nobel Prizewinners in chemistry, biology and toxicology. The Government - our Government, uniquely in the whole of the European Union, pretends it knows nothing of these facts and critiques and continues to violate medical ethics with its anti-democratic and crazy mission to poison us all; children being the emotive fall-guys to justify the crime.
The case for fluoridating Bristol, even if it is shown to be feasible, may be up for the most intense public scrutiny and protest, given the record of good dental health in South Gloucestershire and attempted fraud on the South Coast...
Bernard J Seward
We can only remember it as it is now banned from sale and use; and quite right too because it is a very poisonous chemical with no known antidote.
Occasionally, however, a case of accidental exposure makes the news where it has been foolishly decanted into an un-labelled bottle or flask and left for years on a shelf from which it may be mistakenly identified as a health or leisure drink.
Even putting the bottle to one's lips, then hastily discarding it, has led to fatal consequences.
So how would you feel about that poison, or another quite like it, listed as Class 2 under the Poisons Act 1972, being added, with the blessing of our National Health Service, to your tap water?
Don't answer that question for the moment. Consider another which has already been put thousands of people in, or around cities or regions where the public health administration, urged by the UK Department of Health, plans to introduce a water fluoridation scheme.
Q. Would you agree to have fluoride added to your drinking water so that children can have better teeth?
That, on its own, seems like a reasonable proposition but anyone ticking the YES box puts their own life and health; and that of their nearest and dearest, severely on the line. It also compromises their long-standing right to refuse medication; that or anything else the state may decide upon in the future.
The 'fluoride' (fluorine compound) to be used for that purpose H2SiF6, a fluorosilicate, stands alongside Paraquat in the poisons register. Knowing that, would you still tick the YES box? 72,000 people in Southampton recently said they wouldn't by voting NO to the fluoridation scheme proposed for their city, via a public petition prefaced by a printed declaration reliably attributed to Gordon Brown, "The people must be allowed to decide..."
Those well-informed Hampshire residents and water consumers were not allowed to decide because their health policy decision-makers, the South Central Strategic Health Authority members - all 12 of them - rode roughshod over their vote and decided for themselves that a NO answer was unacceptable; and that fluoridation just had to be good news for everyone, including, of course, the children, even highly vulnerable infants.
In the county of Cumbria, a leaked document revealed that its Director of Public Health had actually instructed his health officials to vote in favour, regardless of public opinion; a crooked 'mailed fist' strategy, hurried along by our Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham, who has told authorities to 'get on with it' without awaiting the outcome of public opinion surveys. Not exactly a vote winner in the democratic election stakes but Burnham's crude outburst and the irony of it has seemingly passed unnoticed.
One of the features of the fluoride legislation was that each Primary Care Trust should request a feasibility study with the water supply company. This can turn out to be a meaningless gesture because once that request has been filed, the commitment becomes obligatory; a 'done deal'. Second thoughts, like those which occurred to the PCT members at Portsmouth who decided against being tied to Southampton's scheme, fearing long term pollution of The Solent, but wished to be re-consulted, were given a frosty response by the SHA; their chairman being de-selected from office. That was his reward for exercising democratic choice; the same treatment dispensed to Southampton folk who had exercised their own brand of democratic choice.
Since then, a surprise has surfaced. Using the Freedom of Information Act, a Southampton citizen has discovered the figures given for decayed, missing and filled teeth in that city were different from those published in the consultation document. Southampton's dental health statistics fall well inside the NHS limits and that city has no need of a fluoridation scheme. Poisonous chemicals do not need to be added to its otherwise clean, uncontaminated water supply. One wonders to what kind of song sheet the SHA sings that it should insist on forcing its hand on the matter?
Concurrently, as reported in the Dursley Gazette 29.10.2009, children in South Gloucestershire have some of the healthiest teeth in the country. Let us hope that its public health director Dr Chris Payne feels disinclined to be carried along on the wave of betrayal of public opinion by applying for a feasibility study simply to stay friends with neighbouring authorities who have swallowed the Government rhetoric inherited from the USA. That is where fluoridation was launched in 1946 as a military atomic waste disposal route; a classic case of secretive fly-tipping to avoid hugely expensive neutralisation charges. Massive cancer deaths followed.
Three award-winning scientists have described fluoridation as "probably the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century" a contention endorsed by 13 Nobel Prizewinners in chemistry, biology and toxicology. The Government - our Government, uniquely in the whole of the European Union, pretends it knows nothing of these facts and critiques and continues to violate medical ethics with its anti-democratic and crazy mission to poison us all; children being the emotive fall-guys to justify the crime.
The case for fluoridating Bristol, even if it is shown to be feasible, may be up for the most intense public scrutiny and protest, given the record of good dental health in South Gloucestershire and attempted fraud on the South Coast...
Bernard J Seward
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Vote in poll re Fluoridation in Southampton
There is a new poll in Southampton regarding fluoridation - it is vital we stop it there - if not it will make it more likely that the whole country will face fluoridation of water supplies - See article and vote here.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Fluoride in our beer
Another personal view from Bernard Seward to the Telegraph:Photo: Safe Water Campaign's beer mat
Cllr Andrew Wickham says we should lower the cost of draught beer to encourage pub patrons to drink socially. I agree, but let's also see a relaxation of the smoking ban.
After all, there's no point in the Department of Health (or Stealth) preaching concern about the health risks of tobacco consumption all the while it is planning to poison millions more of us with water supply fluoridation schemes.
It should be remembered too that fluoride in the water usually means fluoride in our beer, especially concentrated in the brewing process.
Bernard J Seward
Member : Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign
Monday, 18 January 2010
Another letter to Telegraph
Another letter to the Telegraph from one of our supporters:Can we be assured that Professor David Nutt and his fellow members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs will have something honest and unambiguous to say about disodium fluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid, the toxic, corrosive and radioactive waste chemical agents being used as unwanted additions to some of our water supplies?
It's no good for the armchair experts at the NHS to say that fluorine compounds do not constitute medication when the declared intention for their use, inhibiting children's tooth decay, so obviously confirm that they do. This is a legal precept which has recently been aired in the European Court of Justice and for which a judgement is anticipated.
Irrespective of whether or not the scientifically un-substantiated claims made for the fluoridating agents proved positive or negative, their use as a prophylactic (preventive) medicinal intervention, en masse, without individual consultation, diagnosis, presciption and signed consent; and the long-held patient's right of refusal, it is beyond reasonable limits of legal interpretation that they should be authorised for that purpose by unelected health officials, briefed by a misinformed Government and in defiance of public opinion.
Do you agree?
Yours sincerely
Bernard J Seward
Friday, 15 January 2010
China stopped water fluoridation - so should we
Dr Emma Derbyshire champions the consumption of water by school children as an aid to their cognition performance, memory and visual attention.
She should, though, be aware that scientific studies in China have recorded a negation of all those personal assets, plus a depression in IQ scores of up to 19 points among children exposed to state-fluoridated water.
As a result, China has stopped all its fluoridation schemes.
The condition if its children's teeth - the alleged motive for the schemes - comes second to their intellectual development.
Who would argue against that? Ask our Health Secretary, Andy Burnham.
Bernard J Seward
She should, though, be aware that scientific studies in China have recorded a negation of all those personal assets, plus a depression in IQ scores of up to 19 points among children exposed to state-fluoridated water.
As a result, China has stopped all its fluoridation schemes.
The condition if its children's teeth - the alleged motive for the schemes - comes second to their intellectual development.
Who would argue against that? Ask our Health Secretary, Andy Burnham.
Bernard J Seward
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Letter to Daily Telegraph
Another of Bernard's letters to papers:I am surprised that concern is being voiced about alien chemicals found in 9 out of 10 peoples' bodies.
BPA, mimicking the effect of oestrogen to cause early puberty and trigger obesity is congruent with the effects of the fluorosilicate chemicals being used to poison the drinking water of nine million British and Irish citizens; and over sixty million Americans.
Our otherwise well-respected Nuffield Health Council and the less respected British Fluoridation Society say simply, "No evidence of harm."
So what's all the fuss about? Has somebody dared to look under the carpet?
Bernard J Seward
Sunday, 3 January 2010
Letter to local press: pedalling drugs is slow murder
Letter sent to Evening Post, Stroud News and Bath Chronicle from one of our supporters - meanwhile our next monthly meeting is 11th Jan at 12.30 - call us for details:
Sir, - In the correspondence columns of the Daily Telegraph recently, a reader quite rightly says, "Pedalling drugs is tantamount to committing slow murder and should be punished as such"
Would he apply that same yardstick to the deliberate contamination of our water supplies, by an autocratic Health Secretary, with a life-threatening industrial waste chemical, once claimed, but now disproved, as a dental health benefit for children?
The catalogue of serious health conditions associated with tap water fluoridation includes IBS, hyperactivity, dementia, depressed IQ, depressed immunity and thyroid function, arthritis, bone fractures and cancers (osteosarcomas), genetic damage including DNA distortion, environmental Lead absorption and kidney failure.
Evidential negative studies run to thousands, internationally confirmed, validated and peer-reviewed; but our Government is now a lone voice in Europe proclaiming "No evidence of harm."
So what penalty do the blinkered ministers, MPs and NHS officials deserve for leading us all into a painfully reduced life expectancy by continuing to promote fluoride as a health benefit?
Bernard J Seward
Sir, - In the correspondence columns of the Daily Telegraph recently, a reader quite rightly says, "Pedalling drugs is tantamount to committing slow murder and should be punished as such"
Would he apply that same yardstick to the deliberate contamination of our water supplies, by an autocratic Health Secretary, with a life-threatening industrial waste chemical, once claimed, but now disproved, as a dental health benefit for children?
The catalogue of serious health conditions associated with tap water fluoridation includes IBS, hyperactivity, dementia, depressed IQ, depressed immunity and thyroid function, arthritis, bone fractures and cancers (osteosarcomas), genetic damage including DNA distortion, environmental Lead absorption and kidney failure.
Evidential negative studies run to thousands, internationally confirmed, validated and peer-reviewed; but our Government is now a lone voice in Europe proclaiming "No evidence of harm."
So what penalty do the blinkered ministers, MPs and NHS officials deserve for leading us all into a painfully reduced life expectancy by continuing to promote fluoride as a health benefit?
Bernard J Seward
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
