FLUORIDE.WEBSITE

Also: fluoride.ga, .gq, .ml & fluoridation.cf, .ga,.gq, .ml, .tk.


MEDIA SECTION

Press Release 006

Note: Embargoed until 00.01 am 4th December 2000

Headline: BIRMINGHAM HEALTH MINISTER IN ATTEMPT TO AVOID SLEAZE PROBE. LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH ALSO IMPLICATED.

  • GISELA STUART SHOWS CONTEMPT FOR SUFFERERS OF FLUORIDE-RELATED CONDITIONS: DISGRACEFUL TACTICS FROM THE HEALTH MINISTER.
  • DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EMPLOYED TO STONEWALL: CRITICAL QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED.
  • MORI AND BIRMINGHAM HEALTH AUTHORITY IN 'SECRETIVE' AND PROPAGANDIST OPINION POLL SCANDAL.

Background:

On the 19th October, 2000, an e-mail was sent to Gisela Stuart, MP & Health Minister. The general theme of this e-mail was to arrange a meeting to discuss the legalised abuse of children who are exposed to toxic fluoride waste products, as well as the tactics used to garner public support for water fluoridation.

A number of pertinent questions and observations were asked or made. But rather than address the issues at stake, Ms Stuart has employed a policy of ignorance, and contempt, and has refused to communicate.

The main issues raised for question were as follows:

  1. Earlier this year, the Birmingham Health Authority sponsored a MORI poll on water fluoridation. Six questions were asked in this poll but only three are in the public domain. It has been seen in the past that opinion poll questions are usually designed to 'persuade' the respondent into giving their support for fluoridation. Considering that the Birmingham Health Authority's representative, Dr John Langford, has refused to provide the remaining three 'secret' questions, we should question the morality and integrity of an opinion poll which is not open and fair.

    In fact, there is much to suspect about this opinion poll inasmuch that the sponsors are well-known pro-fluoridation propagandists and that the MORI web-site has carried one-sided propagandist material on behalf of the Authority and compiled by the "West Midlands Regional Dental Health Promotion Group" (which is made up in part of members of some Health Authorities, including Dr Langford).

    Birmingham Health Authority and MORI are therefore under suspicion, until proven otherwise, of conducting an opinion poll to achieve a specific result, and quite possibly a result that they could not achieve in an environment of accountability to the general public.

    DoH RESPONSE: They don't want to get involved!

  2. The second serious issue involves the status of another Health Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Health. The information that had previously been received from the Department of Health (DoH) indicated that Lord Hunt was still a member of the pro-fluoridation and propagandist outfit, the British Fluoridation Society.

    The reply from the DoH was as follows:

    "... I can confirm you are mistaken in regard to your comments about Lord Hunt's involvement with the British Fluoridation Society. The minister is not a current member, nor has he ever been a personal member. His involvement has only ever been as a corporate member, which was during his previous involvement with the NHS Confederation (formerly the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts)."

  3. End of DoH statement.

However ...

Lord Hunt's own words (from Hansard, 7-40 pm, 16 Dec 1998: Column 1421:

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath:

"... Certainly, in my 25 years in the health service before coming to your Lordships' House, fluoridation often played a part in my working life, first as a CHC Secretary in the 1970s; secondly, holding public meetings to discuss the issue as a member of the British Fluoridation Society Council and, thirdly, as director of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts where many of our health authority members have been wrestling with those issues for well over 20 years."

CONCLUSIONS:

  • Gisela Stuart has displayed an absence of accountability. Her attitude will help bad and fraudulent science, and propaganda, to dictate future policy on fluoridation. As a consequence, the Government is likely to maintain a policy of fluoride chemical child abuse.
  • Lord Hunt's fondness for one-sided pro-fluoridation propaganda is well established. The fact that someone who is so heavily biased towards one viewpoint AND is an established 'friend' of the British Fluoridation Society is not acceptable. Ministers should be free of any influence and yet Lord Hunt's cosy relationship with pro-fluoridation propagandists and his compliant nature makes him totally unsuitable for the position he holds.
  • There is an obvious and blatant conspiracy of like-minded and influential individuals in both of the Houses who will do their upmost to continue to promote lies and half-truths about the so-called 'benefits' of fluoridation.

Conflict of interest? See Hansard entries (below)

7 Jul 2000 : Column: 335W

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the British Fluoridation Society; and what contributions were made to the Society by the Government in each year since 1975-76. [129658]

Yvette Cooper: The main role the Department funds the British Fluoridation Society to fulfill, is to collect and maintain evidence on the effects of fluoridation. Our support for the British Fluoridation Society since 1975-76 has been:

Year:Amount:
1975-76 £4,500
1976-77 £5,500
1977-78 £5,500
1978-79 £5,500
1979-80 £5,500
1980-81 £11,000
1981-82 £14,000
1982-83 £15,000
1983-84 £15,000
1984-85 £15,000
1985-86 £30,000
1986-87 £20,000
1987-88 £20,000
1988-89 £30,000
1989-90 £31,000
1990-91 £45,784
1991-92 £51,491
1992-93 £56,000
1993-94 £62,247
1994-95 £63,000
1995-96 £74,000
1996-97 £117,609
1997-98 £90,000
1998-99 £76,000
1999-00 £78,000

A total of: £941,631 ... equals a lot of 'corporate hospitality'!

Hansard, again: 25 Jul 2000 : Column: 502W

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2000, Official Report, column 335W, regarding fluoridation, what conditions apply to the moneys given by his Department to the British Fluoridation Society. [131331]

Yvette Cooper [holding answer 20 July 2000]: Since 1975 successive Governments have funded the British Fluoridation Society to help promote and implement their policies on oral health by providing evidence based advice to all interested parties. The Society is required to maintain accounts which show the use to which funds have been put for inspection by the Department's auditors.

REMINDER:Like many other anti-fluoridation organisations, we are NOT funded by any Government or industry with (or without) vested interests.

BUT WITH NEARLY £1 MILLION TO EXPLOIT WE COULD DO A LOT MORE!

END OF STATEMENT.

ITEM HERE