To get a fluoridation scheme going you need to get your plates spinning. 

Tame news outlets are essential throughout, for the process to succeed uninterrupted.
















Expect a fight. You will need a good letter writer, and three pictures: a toothbrush under a tap, some teeth rotted from fruit juice to wave as an example of a "fluoride deficiency", and some good teeth.

To begin with, all white lies about fluoridation are justified - because somebody else has proved that fluoride is harmless and beneficial. That proof includes everything you repeat ad nauseam or leave out altogether. 

Correct language is vital. You must communicate all of it as if it is water that you are here to save, not people.

DO make fluoridation a water treatment for teeth, but NOT a treatment for people's teeth, or worst of all, a treatment for people.

If you say it's for children's teeth, people might think it's no good for adults. If you say it's good for adults, people might think you're steering clear of children and babies.

So you have to say it's good for areas, in a lifelong kind of a way. 

Avoid discussing the intended targets of your treatment, the unborn.

It's better to avoid mentioning different sorts of fluoridated people altogether if possible.



Skip around this reality problem in press releases by fluoridating "homes", lending your planned dosage a more utilitarian, domestic feel.

You may fluoridate a community, especially a community water. But fluoridating families or households is contraindicated.

Let your more ignorant patients assume it's a water treatment as far as you can get away with it. 

But look at all this water. So much water, doing so many things. It can be tricky to not look like you are merely dispersing industrial waste. Even a little old lady in tennis shoes could trip you up with that. 

If you cannot avoid such confrontations, your best bet is to stick to a very narrow and dogmatic argumentum ad verecundiam and not even know anything about any non-tooth-or-area-related water subjects. And hide as much as possible.

If the worst-case scenario occurs and you actually have to debate with a member of the public about their treatment, don't forget that as an expert you can always slag anti-fluoridationists off as a species instead of addressing their evidence.



Unfortunately these days you're not supposed to just jump ahead and fluoridate a bunch of people. You actually have to convince a few of them first. But not many. 

First off you must conduct one or more highly educationally loaded surveys. "Educational" means ignoring any anti-fluoride evidence or views except what you tell them to think in the questions.

If your survey still won't come out right, throw it away and do another one. 

More than half replying as you suggest is the proof you need, to display the receptivity of your proposed fluoridee population to the amateur medical activities of their democratically elected local representatives, that some of them voted for - obviously so that their District Council could decide what they eat and drink.  

Concentrate on statistics rather than the people you used to make them. Reminding the officials of human diversity won't help your fluoride cause.

As you weight their decision with selective evidence, half-truths, untruths, crooked thinking, maths-free appeals to hubris, well-timed sob stories in the press, and who knows what else, you need just one thing from them: a majority, however slim, committing them to fluoridating the toothless water or area.

With any luck you can get through the whole thing with the patient never knowing you helped her out


Tougher methods on drugs being used in the former colonies in 2010.




By concentrating on water and numbers of theoretical teeth, all concerned will have escaped a potentially psychologically discomfiting confrontation 

- with their lack of medical jurisdiction over a mass of unknown patients with unknown pre-existing conditions or exposures, whose treatment you want the councillors to vote for

- with the logistical and legal difficulties of examining nobody's patients before and after your pharmaceutical regimen 

- and with their total unsuitability as a farmer or shop owner to decide on matters of epigenetics, trends in medical ethics, pharmacology, differences in sensitivity between different species of experimental animals, and so forth. 



If the councillors start examining the issue too closely they are bound to spook. Luckily they are busy on social problems, such as planning issues, local taxes, business licensing and bingo. 

Many will just follow their faith in the ultimate authority on fluoride available to them - you. 

JUST KEEP ON insisting on really simple concepts, like fluoridating the Wrong Thing. 

USE EASY SLOGANS like one part per million, half the decay, the most thoroughly tested ever, millions fluoridated, no harmful effects AT ALL. EVERYBODY SAID. That's it! 

Double down on your weak hands. You cannot win in a dental fluorosis battle except by claiming "Everybody LOVES it!" early on. This is another good reason for avoiding public meetings.



Other topics offer the chance for more creativity. E.g. by mendaciously equating the characteristics of the artificially fluoridated Wrong Thing with the natural version, or by exaggerating the geographic prevalence of fluoridation-type levels - in both natural and artificial cases - you can make a simple story that helps country councillors to relax a bit and feel like they are just catching up with progress, during their extraordinary adventure into mass-prophylaxis.

WORRY any councillors who stand in your way that they'll look too evil or weird for their ward to vote for. 

Or like windbags. Wave your fruit-juice-teeth picture to finish them off as the vote nears.

With democracy's vote in the bag a big Agreement follows, showing who does what, to ensure the Wrong Thing gets fluoridated, to what specifications, and who pays.

Along with the Agreement comes a legal indemnity absolving the business end of fluoridation from ALL COSTS OF FLUORIDATING THE WRONG THING: machinery, storage, manpower, lab services. 

But also damages arising from chemical spills, transport accidents, overfeeds, and any unforeseeable - at least among fluoride promoters and people with no internet - harms caused to the consumers after using the fluoridated Wrong Thing as intended.

When they can afford to prove it in court.

These activities conclude the so-called public consultation as required by the Water Act. No one involved wants to hear about this subject from the public again.

Banal. The neuroenzymatic alteration of 100,000 Lincoln area fluoridees was arranged here.


Congratulations! You've just fluoridated most food chains, food and beverages grown or processed in the area whose supplies you affected, and tens of thousands of people, most eventually up 9 months before they will be born.

They believe in your conception-to-grave expertise because of your confidence at repeating simple things over and over. Stick to your lines and you can't go wrong.

It's back to car parks and other municipal facilities for the councillors.

And off in search of fresh  deficiency-suffering waters and areas for the fluorocrats. The plumber will handle it all from now on.


Fluoridated everything, Dallas-style


Following on from the response to the Yorkshire Water information request, the SEVERN TRENT IN SOUTH YORKS FLUORIDE VENN assembles the known legal and geographic facts and their logic co-dependencies.

In fact you might not need to even bother with a legal application.

The STSYV shows all gatekeepers, in what meagre protections UK legislation affords consumers against being fluoridated, cirmcumvented and defeated in real life. 

As usual the best plan is for everybody to point at someone else. Here's United Utilities on the responsibility issue...


You can use my former local authority's method of reacting to questions on the issue...

If that isn't enough, you can take it to the next level...


Using such techniques, Lincoln City Council have successfully not answered the Ruddock Question for decades.

To deal with existing schemes, water companies can refer the consumer to Public Health England on Twitter, but to the Secretary of State for Health on their websites without mentioning PHE.

As a Health Minister you are far too busy to answer patients' questions and would have to practice all the above, before trying to make a public pronouncement on fluoridating people (- don't mention those obviously - better try for a different job.



Click above to see the latest answers on fluoride from the Secretary of State.

To be continued...