fluoridationfacts.com & fluoride.website
12th May, 2003. For immediate release
Headline: New Labour ... more sleaze
In a recently conveniently leaked letter ("the letter") to certain areas of the media, notably the Sunday Times, it has been claimed that the New Labour government will be urged to introduce widespread water fluoridation. The letter was signed by both Hazel Blears (Health Minister) and Elliot Morley (Environment Minister).
A number of significant points can be raised:
 Messrs. Blears and Morley make the following comment: “Those who remain adamantly opposed would be able to use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking water.” For those who are sensitive to fluoride this is an arrogant assumption to make. Considering the main target of water fluoridation will be deprived communities, many of those who oppose the practice will not be able to afford bottled water or effective filters. This is based on the personal experience of the author who previously suffered appalling treatment and hardship at the hands of the Severn Trent Water Ltd.
 There has never been shown any credible evidence to show that water fluoridation is effective at reducing tooth decay, despite all the lies, propaganda, spinning and contrived statistics of the pro-fluoridation lobby. In fact, it has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that when prevailing fluoridation schemes end, tooth decay rates remain stable.
 It was recently revealed in an American study that children aged 12-19 drank large quantities of 'soda' - so much that the daily intake was equivalent to 23-24 spoonfuls of sugar. The UK Government should introduce a sugar levy on all sweetened products to help combat the ravages of dental disease.
 The recommendations made in the offending letter are based on many misconceptions and distortions of the truth. For example, the claim that: "... opinion polls have consistently shown that about two-thirds of people believe fluoridation to be beneficial.", is an outrageous lie. Many opinion polls on the subject have either been secretive and have concealed the strategies used by researchers, or have been constructed as to ask leading questions designed to illicit one type of answer.
 The claim that: "Ministers argue the measures are justified because children in fluoridated areas have much less tooth decay." is another act of deception. There are strong regional variations in tooth decay rates, notably from the North to South of England. When comparing similarly socio-economic non-fluoridated regions, tooth decay rates can be demonstrated to be much lower in the South of England (such as certain areas of central London) than in many Northern regions.
 It should also be noted that the data commonly used in dental health surveys counts teeth which are damaged by fluoride, even where the damage is severe, then these teeth are counted as being "sound and present".
 In areas where fluoridation is introduced, other 'tactics' are employed to improve dental health. This gives the illusion that fluoridation alone is responsible for improvements in dental health. One example is the extension of fluoridation in Wolverhampton towards the end of the last millennia. It can be demonstrated that a massive increase in dental health expenditure took place at just the time fluoridation was being introduced.
As the proprietor of this website, and as a researcher with over 11 years experience of fluorides and water fluoridation (with a special emphasis on dental health statistics), I have no reservations in calling the attempt to extend fluoridation as an exercise in deceit. Ministers who should know better are behaving like charlatans, and one can only assume that at least some have alternative agendas. In addition, the Medical Research Council have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy (at least to this author), and the so-called scientific review conducted at York University in 2001-2 was a clear demonstration of how to manipulate science to achieve a specific objective.
THE SIMPLE AND CLEAR MESSAGE IS THIS: WATER FLUORIDATION IS A FRAUDULENT PROCEDURE.
END OF STATEMENT.