Dear United Kingdom Electoral Commission,
compares apathy towards cancelling Brexit, as expressed by
the percentage in each constituency who didn't sign the
petition to revoke Article 50 (stay in the EU) with their
Nothing can be determined
about individual fluoridatedness. Fluorothink
does not like dealing with individuals.
More about fluorothink as we go on.
nothing can be elucidated from the
petition about Brexitiness at the single-organism
level. HoC petitioners are of
course anonymous to the world looking in.
But we can look at both on a constituency
basis, with a few tweaks.
June 23 2016 EU referendum, the
Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU petition
enjoyed the benefits of a ripened public awareness of the
issues at stake.
Started on 20
February 2019, it received five million signatures in five
days, and closed on 20 August with 6,103,056 signatories.
was an unusual opportunity to explore fluoridatedness vs.
political impulse on a large scale,
with reliable inputs. Imagine what it would have taken to
lay hands on data like that in the
Constituencies were defined as fluoridated where more
than 0% people were, according to the best available
information, being fluoridated in some or all of that
Constituencies defined as
unfluoridated had 0% people being fluoridated where
registered to vote.
In other words, partially
fluoridated constituencies were counted as fluoridated.
However, fluoridation-engendered increases in voter total
fluoride intake via food and beverages travelling from
manufacture or processing in areas of fluoridated people
into the food chain of unfluoridated constituencies were
ignored for the purpose of identifying constituencies as
fluoridated or unfluoridated.
unfluoridated constituencies is therefore underestimated by
being disavowed. Therefore the
imperfections in the modelling are countervailing at least,
in terms of any effect of fluoride on Brexitiness.
Naturally fluoridated constituencies, defined as all or
partly supplied with water with >0.5mg/litre F-, were
Among constituencies with
relatively high levels of apathy toward the Revoke A50
petition were found many with fluoridated constituents.
Conversely, fluoridated constituents were increasingly
rare in the low apathy areas. Across the country there was a
negative correlation between fluoridatedness and pro-Remain
Officially, 10% of the population is
fluoridated. In the lowest 50 petition signing
constituencies by percentage, 19 are populated with
artificially fluoridated and one with naturally fluoridated
people, a total of 40%.
the top 50 petition signing constituencies by percentage,
only one is populated with fluoridated people, or 2%.
Many have commented on the stupidity of Brexit
supporters. At the risk of becoming more like them, I agree
with this world view. Whether Brexiteers are more stupid,
dislike petitions, or are less politically engaged generally
can all be debated. Had I
not disliked either being
fluoridated or ejected from the EU, this comparison would
probably not have been made. I am biased.
In view of these biases, but
primarily because the methodology
of this could be improved in terms of fine-tuning the inputs
in regard to a) fluoridatedness in
nominally unfluoridated seats, b) partially
fluoridated seats, and c) more
informative large scale blood/urinary fluoride screening -
and not by me - I have not
proceeded to any probabilistic analysis. I declare
the result (right) an impressive
finding against the null hypothesis on its face.
is intelligent about Brexit seems to be an unwelcome topic
for the majority of its adherents, who are obviously
functioning on an emotional axis crafted by Cambridge
Analytica and their ilk. That's just an
opinion, and it's begging the question to say Brexit is
stupid even though it obviously is.
However, the data described above was assembled
honestly, and all ultimately
ascribed to official sources.
Though I am Remain-biased,
unfluoridatedness-biased and anti-stupidity, I was surprised
just how well the results confirmed
my bias without requiring
any deliberate manipulation.
Data didn't need to be selected or skewed
in any way. And how could it be? (By lying).
My bias is identical
in its typology to
the bias in the story about fluoride and
tooth decay that you probably heard first
and several times over again. The
"error" - and fluorothink cannot even respond to this kind
without violating the rules of fluorothink - was
choosing what to look at,
to begin with. Fluoride researchers have
been making lots of these sorts of errors recently, and not
Its main flaw
in interpreting the data - the blockwise
representation of status and lack of granularity - applies
to the results of elections too. But I also think such a
type of flaw can apply to nothing more profusely than
fluoridation and its cornucopia of biochemical pathway
targets in a population of individuals,
of whose actual welfare status under its thrall fluorothink
is wilfully and comprehensively ignorant.
Physiological reasons to suppose a biochemical influence of
fluoride on mental development are not absent(2)
but, according to fluorothink, all anti-fluoridation
findings are wrong because they come from
anti-fluoridationists and their websites. I'm happy to agree
not 100% of everything out there is correct.
Organisations and flacks with fluoridated skin in the game
are ever-ready to nitpick and scoff about long-overdue
fluoride studies in the media. Quantity, not quality,
characterises their output but ultimately they are like
daleks when it comes to stairs. You will need ammo to pick
off their various nonsenses as you go:
this requires an intellectual
Remember, if you lose, it could be you next!
Fun as it might be, real science debates belong to
conferences, not Twitter. There is a timeline of
skullduggery as old as fluoridation itself. Debate there
must be. But fluorothink doesn't really like
showing its face. Fluorothink
refuses to say with which of
these statements those in favour of fluoridating your
household, and those who don't want to get fluoridated,
might see themselves in agreement.
Data supports the notions that fluoridated people
are fatter, have less energy, and fewer possibilities for
Average constituents with added fluoride feel themselves to
be less healthy, and logic would suggest ill people or those
seeing illness around them are more prone to believe lies
about spending £350 million extra a week on the NHS.
In other words, with their flag-waving hatred of Spanish
waiters, the fluoridated Brexit voter tends to resemble an
old person, sometimes trapped
inside a superficially youthful
body - like
BeLeave hero Darren Grimes, who
was born fluoridated in Durham North West.
Ecological evidence finds fluoridated people more
Brexity. Perhaps this can even be twisted to make fluoride
look like a good thing, I don't know.
They could smooth it over, and say fluoride helped the
country come to a decision, maybe.
For another 2019 petition to the House of
Commons expressing pro-EU sentiment, this time against the
prorogation of Parliament, I charted obesity against
signature response in the following constituencies.
The results correspond closely with
those of the 2016 referendum.
Correlation does not imply causation, as we know.
However, three times more seats with
fluoridated constituents (18 seats) swung to Conservative in
the December 2019 General Election than would have been
expected from chance (6 seats). This is an example of
correlation and causation being completely different.
While fluorothink will argue night
into day to explain there's no proof of causation between
fluoride and obesity, or fluoride and stupidity, it's a
different story in the case of fluoride increasing
income by 4.2% and increasing the probability of employment
by 2%, for every 1mg/litre fluoride increment.(4)
When the results align with
fluorothink, correlation exactly equals causation -
according to this guy who likes to find any way available to
diss papers with negative news about fluoridation.
We are in unfluoridated Sweden where, he concedes,
levels above 2mg/litre are "relatively rare", and he even
includes this histogram showing
that levels above 1.5mg/litre are extremely rare.
If only Conservatives voting for more
fluoridatedness oop north had caused wealth...which,
squandered on chips and ale had made people
unhealthy...increasing the appeal of the NHS...making them
more Brexity...leading to exhaustion and
helplessness...causing them to vote Conservative in the
desperate hope reality will go away, we would finally have
an understandable trajectory for Britain. But we can't say
This argument about causation vs.
correlation doesn't exactly disprove anything about
fluoridated EU Leavers being easy
marks for the votemongers.
Anyone diminished in intellect due to their pregnant
mother's water having been spiked - and let's not forget
we're talking averages here, not real people - should be a
cause for concern, not departing from a trading bloc.
Even if causation was determined, I
would not propose one thing I don't
people with lower intelligence) as
the single cause of a result I don't want (people
with lower intelligence, detail-phobic jingoists, racists
and xenophobes taking control over policymaking).
combining my biases, I do not feel fluoridation should be
abandoned completely. It should be
preserved for the special
place in hell reserved, per Donald Tusk,
for the architects of Brexit, who could perhaps be herded
onto the Isle of Wight, isolated from the rest, and there
As I am so biased, the role
of voters' fluoride treatment in election and referendum
results should be assessed by professional statisticians
whose idea of fluoride is not just what the government says
it is, i.e. a water treatment for areas with bad average
teeth, with no biologically significant effects except
politically good ones. Or only mine.(5)
Top-class mathematicians will observe that voters
are not an area, and that water does not have any teeth.
Being average does not, as fluorothink would have them
believe, mean that every individual comes with the same mean
It is not necessary for the hypothesis of
fluoride-induced idiocy that its political effects be
intended by the paymaster, a Mr Matt Hancock,
and his predecessors.
In fact whatever the real purpose of fluoridation is, it
is irrelevant to the IQ or general health debate
- unless Mr Hancock is
he knew all about what he was buying all along.
Unnecessary human additives such as fluoride do not know
which systems they are supposed to be targeting. He is just
getting it for you to try free while these
effects are still being discovered.(6)
Fluoride and alcohol? Fluoride and necrotic villi?(7)
In Birmingham you could call them Aston villi boom boom! But
seriously whoever heard of putting fluoride and those things
together? Everybody knows fluoride is the water thing. Or
the toothpaste thing.
of selling stuff bleeds into election
performance art. Dogs and stiff upper lips may be critical
to Britain's future prosperity.
But putting fluoride in dog bones
and worrying about Gavin
Williamson's post-ejaculatory intervals isn't a fluorothink
thing to do. Who votes on the basis of
what they haven't heard, however egregious the omission?
While the under-reported research continues quietly,
you'll easily find a pro-fluorothink expert. As soon as you
question fluorothink, they'll find you.
pretty clear no UK Health Minister going back to Iain
MacLeod has ever had enough time off from politicking to
have any actual clue about the fluoride story, and if they
ever did they would have lied about it rather than offend
the agrochem lobby.
No mens rea is necessary. But
wilful neglect, looking away, and crooked thinking seem
essential to the perpetuation of such a situation.
But is it worth asking who might benefit from turning the
poor into a bilious blob, or fossilising the brains of the
electorate? For those to whom the EU represents peace, WW2
was about defeating Nazism. But for those who consider
themselves enemies of the EU, the important thing about WW2
was defeating foreigners. Brexit supporters would struggle
to give detailed reasons for doing so.
Note that the
big general strikes of the past mostly originated in mining
and industrial communities whose economy evolved under a
top-down hierarchical command structure. Former
one-trick-pony towns like Coventry, Lincoln, and Newcastle
all fluoridate people nowadays.
At least four more elections must elapse before any
politically-significant perinatal fluoridation effects can
be reflected in the vote.
A 20 year moratorium on
fluoridating people would reveal whether unfluoridated
people vote more, turn lefty, grow up to be less parochial
and myopic in their political choices, or more susceptible
to low-grade political social media messages that they might
otherwise treat with contempt.
Conversely to experiment positively
on influencing elections with fluoride you would have
to fluoridate Islington residents for 20 years to see
whether more people start wearing top hats and riding to
hounds. Or become
typical Brexit footsoldiers.
The question about fluoridatedness
and Brexitiness is
why are the fluoridated voters more apathetic or pro-Brexit?
And vice versa. Many are further away from Europe, but not
all. Pro-EU Scotland is further away from Europe than all of
the UK's fluoridated populations.
The coincidences keep on coming. Now I'm
comparing your fluoridation status
and 2019/2020 Council Tax levels.(8)
The top 25 most expensive included 9 with
artificially and one with naturally fluoridated people,
The 25 least expensive included just one
municipality with fluoridated people: 4%.
unfluoridated of Band D paid between £200
and £1300 less per year than their dentally-assisted
Again this is a large
sample with reliable inputs. To be fair, nobody really knows
the fluoride intake of anyone. Their optimal dose is all
over the place, so fluorothink favours dosing the water
rather than the patient. Fluorothink doesn't think of them
as patients. You don't want those. They'd have
rights and shit. It would be too easy to find people with
too high an intake if anyone looked, so fluorothink doesn't
favour looking for those kind of things,
but rather encourages us to take something-or-other's word
Why are high council tax payers more likely to be
fluoridated? You may wish to involve others to investigate
e.g. the Local Government Association. Why are low council
tax payers less likely to be fluoridated? Do councils like
higher council tax rates? How do these receipts influence
the authorities' desire to fluoridate their electorate?
How is sick leave affected? How are staff affected by being
fluoridated and dealing with fluoridated people? I can
report anecdotally that it's pure poetry.(9)(10)
What other unpleasant
non-fluorothinkian correlations that are not causations
await the amateur investigator besides Brexitiness,
obesity, and teenage pregnancy?
Changes in the suicide rate, the proportion of
low pay workers, the provision of maternity pay,
antidepressant use, and police force morale, revealed
nothing suggestive of a desirable correlation with
fluoridatedness. In every one of these cases, something
completely the opposite emerges.
This might inspire a wish to liaise with more people -
whom you will find to your despair have been drilled in
fluorothink - i.e. not to think very much or, indeed,
the end you are more likely affected than me. I have escaped
from the island of the fluoridated to continental Europe,
where fluoridating people has been resoundingly rejected or
abandoned. Where I am, they've never even heard of it.
Give us the proof, you may say.
Fluorothink gives some nobody the right to reject all your
reasons not to swallow fluoride - and demand you prove to
whoever-it-is why you shouldn't. A clever command and
control set up will ensure nothing happens and nobody gets
the blame. Perhaps you are one!
To those putatively affected I say, get the proof
you need about any effect of fluoridatedness (or lack of
one) on the voting habits of yourself...yourself.
What you are made of does
inevitably play some role in your
vote. It's not that diet can't
affect your thinking, but that you really can't do
anything about it when it does. You wouldn't expect vegans
and meth addicts to vote in a similar fashion, would you?
This describes the kind of learned helplessness and lack of adaptability you might
expect if you were born in the West Midlands or Newcastle
and it turned out that some councillors voted in such a way
that your future ability to empathise - whether with your
own children, or with people of other ethnicities - was
diminished as part of a general coarsening of human
sensibilities sometimes known colloquially as DWP.(9)
I wouldn't rate fluoride as a pacifier or promoter of
emotional bonding, not least because it enhances metal
uptakes. I never saw so many wappy people until I hit Bomber
County. Huge loony bin. Ruffians galore.
This is where the "sense of proportion" kicks in.
A mass perinatal or subsequent
dumbing-down of historically
strike-prone areas might be seen as either dramatic or
comedic. To protect himself, the fluoridated person needs to
make his opinions fit his own circumstances.
why unfluoridated folks down in London do all the big
metropolitan elite might not be
feeling the same urgency about
Fred being fluoridated as does
Fred himself when he pitches up in some provincial town,
only to find his kinases the target of a cell of an
uncaring, politically- if not
scientifically-endowed fluorothink cult.(12)
The good news is, you can face being born with defective
autophagy, excessive apoptosis and neuronal loss, and still get a job in local
You'll never miss those deficits you never knew you
Fluoridating people is an American invention. The US Army
promotes it. But it cannot spell it.
Perhaps despite everything, you still believe that only
water is fluoridated, and that my use of language is some
kind of clever propaganda trick.(13)
Or that there must be some kind of a way out of
confronting this now somehow, without of course ceasing to
Only media Editors can switch this massive lie around.(15)
Is Brexit a mental illness? Really you have to be
biased to call anything a mental illness. In this case, I
believe time has told. Ofwat itself has succumbed to
And here it is, being worked out in the mother of all
parliaments, not counting Iceland. Is Brexit an
unintended consequence of the 1953 health minister spending
all night playing cards at White's?(17)
If the UK can't even keep records of fluoride air
guessing UK electoral law probably doesn't have much to say
about electoral interference by (intergenerational) mass
intoxication or local authority-induced mitochondrial
Who, after all, plans for voter
impediment attributable to people being born with fewer
brain cells in the first place? Or too fat to get up and go
vote? Fluoridated people have a personal responsibility,
they will say. Your vote counts too, they will say. If you
live in a treatment zone, you may vote differently, but it's
still your idea. And Facebook's of course. If someone did
plan for that, would the next generation keep those plans
going, do you think?
Why all the screenshots? Fluorothink wants the wrong
kind of facts removed. Fluorothink doesn't want
considerations of chemical gerrymandering
in any electoral law so,
Brexit-like, if you don't want to risk
having fluoridated children voting
for secession by smaller and smaller countries you'll
just have to lump it, or buy water in plastic bottles, and
And yet, according to fluorothink there is no extra
fluoride in fluoridated food.(19)
Although come to think of it - and here you are
coming to think of something for the first time -
fluorothink doesn't put that on the label.
Fluorothink doesn't think the text of The Fluorine in Food
Regulations 1959 ought to appear on the Internet either.
I have a copy I made in the 1980s. What did it say about
putting fluorine in food?
It said don't. Ever.
Julian Bohan 1 January 2020