Fluoride Consultation. NE England and North Yorkshire

fluorine periodic table symbol

By Simon Haigh.

 

THE PUBLIC’S CHANCE TO OBJECT TO FLUORIDE WHICH IS PROVEN TO BE A NEUROTOXICITY AND IS INJURING THE POPULATION AT CURRENT LEVELS

We are now in the 9th week of Public Consultation (PC) period for Water Fluoridation for the North East of England including North Yorkshire and have only 4 weeks to respond up to the 17th of June 2024. 1.6 million residents are likely to become fluoridated if we fail to submit our concerns to the Dpeartment of Health and Social Care (DHSC). To submit your concerns please follow the link to the government’s questionaire and fill out your consultation form specifying your objections. Try and make simple legal arguments for example that fluoride is a ‘poison’ and demonstrates harm at government levels. In order to help you we have published our replies to the government’s consultation below, which we suggest that you read and include in your own answers. For interested parties there are also further cogent arguments to be found at UK Free Fluoride Alliance. The link to complete the Public Consultation is as follows and is open to ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE UK: 

Link to consultation

Fluoride Consultation Answers

1) Library House of Commons 2013 predicted fluorosis (criminal damage)

2) Public Health England has documented EVIDENCE of this harm to the population in their own report and have ignored criminal injury

3) Dental fluorosis in the most updated toxicological literature is an INDICATOR of osteopathic, kidney, neurological and endocrinal injury

4) Organisations are conspiring to injure UK subjects showing FOREKNOWLEDGE based on the latest medical datasets

5) The 4 Chief Health officers have admitted culpability by acknowledging RISK, which they are not permitted under the Water Articles

6) Indeminities are illegal because they concede risk (Injury and Death)

7) The Health Monitoring reports are illegal as they monitor RISK, which they are not permitted to do under the Water Laws & show foreknowledge of injury. (Criminal Damage & Conspiracy), (Section 23 Maliciously Administering a poison to

endanger of inflict grievous bodily harm).

8) ‘Grievous bodily harm’ is compatible legally with the injuries sustained by fluorosis. ‘The damage to teeth caused by severe enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect…consistent with prevailing risk assessment definitions of adverse health effects’ (National Research Council)

9) The government’s ‘Feasibility and Technical’ document outlines risk identified with… ‘ALL THE FLUORIDE SCHEMES. Fluoride dosing is predicted to increase the number of properties… to fluorapatite formation risk, and requires further investigation through subsequent implementation’. It is illegal to investigate known and published risks through the implementation of water schemes. Fluorapatite = dental fluorosis = damage to property and environmental corrosion.

10) Hexafluorosilicic acid is incompatible with Primary UK law in that it adds a third (and non-permissible) compound of fluorine to water.

Consultation Questions Impact Assessment

There will be no cost-benefit analysis because of medical injuries sustained through fluorosis & there will be a net loss for the population due to criminal damage

1) Increased rates of fluorosis that in extreme cases will lead to additional cavities & health cost bills

2) Increased rates of thyroid problems outlined by Professor Peckham Reports (Centre for Health Service Studies 2012-2013), which are being willfully ignored by the government

3) Loss of IQ points, which impact on earning outcomes for local populations that also negatively impact Gross National Product. National Toxicological Program (Bashash 2017 / 2018, Green 2019 and Till 2015 / 2020)

4) Increased rates in childhood cancers and cancers within the adult demographics ‘Cancer Causes and Control’, Harvard, 2006 / Dr C. Chilvers and D. Conway in 1985. ‘Cancer Mortality in England in Relation to Levels of Naturally Occurring Fluoride in Water Supplies’ from the Journal of Epidemiological Community Health (1985; 39:44-7).

5) Your own Impact assessments are by definition non-impartial & use biased language. For instance, the way that the aforementioned question has been framed as a COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS when in fact a ‘Cost Impact Assessment’ is designed to ascertain if the impact assessments are beneficial or not.

6) Yorkshire People Against Fluoride consider the Impact to have a COST DETRIMENT ANALYSIS, an assessment which has legal connotations for unilateral recompensation due to injury and loss

7) Damage to the environment through illegal water poisoning -Environmental Act Regulations

8) Increased litigation & the possibility of accomplices being jailed for showing foreknowledge of criminal damage (Conspiracy)

9) Different regions exposed to higher risk (fluoride levels are inherently difficult to regulate safely)

10) Costly legal bills for water companies & local councils

Consultation Questions Any Other Issues

The fluoride issue has further implications for medical science & scrutiny

1) If the government mandate controversial ‘interventions’ with full impunity from legal scrutiny (liability), the corporate sector will see this has an opportunity to implement controversial treatments on largescale populations, in which there is a net increase in risk with a depreciation in return of positive health outcomes. i.e. (Incentivization)

2) We have a gradual erosion of laws & the capture of government institutions through private interest groups steering laws towards illegal risk, which we have seen within the fluoride sector and the pharmaceutical sector.

3) Increased centralisation of medicine leads to populational diktats, which submit populations to UNEQUIVOCAL RISK

4) If the government mandate cross populational treatments, we have no means to look objectively at the science & to do cross populational studies with control groups, because the control group effectively no longer exists. The evaluation of risks & harms therefore become almost impossible to demonstrate and are meaningless.

5) The government and the World Health Organisation are becoming arrogant in that they think it is acceptable to subject populations to ABSOLUTE RISK, without consent, a medical position which is implicitly forbidden under the Nuremberg Codes & the Human Rights Act

6) We need to be continually vigilant against corporate and scientific fraud, in

which doctors & dentists are not afraid to speak out in fear of their jobs. (robust debate)

7) All medicines should be submitted to the same laws that are required of local populations & liabilities, (which are illegal) should be scrapped

Consultation Questions How could the Government Improve the Consultation Process

YPAF are continually monitoring the fluoride situation and we have not seen this widely advertised within mainstream media outlets, which suggests a reluctance for the government to constructively engage. The proposals in the consultation will affect Yorkshire negatively and there has been little data published on the implications of Fluoridation in our regions. Lastly consultations on LEVELS OF RISK incurred through subjecting the population to a known toxicological agent that is carcinogenic and is causing injury EVIDENCED in your own government reports (fluorosis / kidney /neurological & endocrinal disorders) is illegal under the Water ACT. The Water Statutes does not permit ‘POTENTIAL DANGER TO HUMAN HEALTH’. The Four Chief medical Officers have UNANIMOUSLY stated that RISK IN WRITING so to have a public consultation when potential danger has been HIGHLIGHTED as a FACT is a negation of the legal statutes permitted and is further a violation which contravenes medical Care of Duty stipulated under the law. The fluoridation schemes, the consultation process, the monitoring reports, the public liability laws and the amendments to add fluoride are all illegal by definition and flout the Water Statutes. In all instances the government’s position and their amendments to the water laws have without exception been PROVEN to subject the population to ILLEGAL RISK. The government is required by law to prevent harm and should therefore act and desist from public fluoridation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top