The New Doctors

or 

Never mind Nuremburg, lets chemically alter everyone's babies

 

On 15 December 1988 members of the Public Protection Committee of Lincolnshire County Council met at Lincoln Fire Brigade Headquarters.

The Councillors received a report from their Waste Disposal Officer, regarding a proposal by North and South Lincolnshire Health Authorities to extend their fluoridation schemes by raising the fluoride content of the population of East Lindsey, and parts of West Lindsey, who are not already fluoridated.

The Health Authorities’ "Consultative Document" distributed to Councillors devotes about one and a half pages to assuring them that fluoride is not a poison and is perfectly safe at a concentration of one part per million in drinking water.

"No harmful effects have ever been substantiated as a result of drinking water fluoridated at 1 ppm," the consultative Document claims.

"Possible effects on pregnancy, on young infants and old people and possible associations with conditions such as goitre, diabetes, mongolism, anaemia and other blood conditions and allergic manifestations have all been investigated.  The scientific literature is wide-ranging and a true assessment of the safety of fluoridation can only be made as a result of an extensive study of the original papers."

If I were an overworked County Councillor I think I might have foregone this opportunity, and taken the Consultative Document's word for it.

I might have thought myself important enough—even flattered to be asked—to decide who should have such-and-such chemical in their drinking water.  I might have asked the health authority questions and received a list of further pro-fluoride reports.

It might never have occurred to me to ask the proposed consumers of the chemical what they thought about it.  If it had, I might have simply dismissed the idea of asking them all as impracticable.

Then there were the "1022 people over the age of 15 in the North Lincolnshire Health District" whose views were polled and reported in the Consultative Document as "Public Opinion".  64% said "yes" after a not particularly subtle piece of brainwashing which the fluoridationists have thought up for their polls.

Cllr. Sidney Campbell—one of the Lincoln City Councillors responsible for the already-raised fluoride content of that city's own inhabitants— took charge.  "It's only fluoride we're talking about," he said, as if chairing a debate on the glitter for the old folks' home Christmas tree.

Luckily a video from the National Pure Water Association arrived at the last moment to remind the Public Protection Committee that fluoride was industrial waste and that doctors' drugging the population was unethical.

The somewhat radioactive fluoride waste ponds of Immingham

 

Following the video the Councillors found themselves unable to make any recommendation that fluoride should be added to East or West Lindsey's population.  So how is it that twenty medically unqualified Lincoln City Councillors were able to invoke such a change in 1968?

How did they anticipate by seventeen years the statutory power now employed to add fluoride to people—the Water (Fluoridation) Act?  Where did they get their power?

Under what circumstances can a farmer, a solicitor, a draughtsman, a biochemist's wife, a railway enthusiast, a medical librarian, an architect and a prison officer, among others, get together around a table and decide by majority vote to alter the body chemistry of all the consumers of a certain group of water supplies?

Lincoln. With its Castle and acid-rain-chewed Cathedral the old town is a sort of masonic praying shop, based largely around increasingly desperate attempts to drag rich or at least very merry tourists to an obscure area with the aid of increasingly tacky historical hype.

The Commission might like to ask how many of the Lincoln Twenty who started fluoridation (by a majority of one) have been the subject of criminal inquiries.  The hypothesis that they lubricated the process solely for the benefit of our teeth does not seem likely in context, or entirely relevant even if it were true.

* * *

Apparently the Public Protection Committee (responsible for Lincolnshire's Fire Brigade and Waste Disposal services) was intended not to think very deeply about the pharmacological purpose of adding fluoride for it to be "incorporated" into tooth enamel (but nowhere else) during "the early stages of development".

A subtle, euphemistic drone pervades the pro-fluoride "literature".  It must deny the pharmacologically obvious: that the fluoride is added to the water to produce a physiological effect upon the consumer.

If it doesn't do so, how is it supposed to work?

"Fluoride is not a medicine and is already present...in water supplies," says one leaflet. "MYTH—Fluoridation is an invasion of an individual's rights," goes another.  Then there are the "fluoride deficient" supplies which are seemingly still numerous.  And my favourite, from a Fluoridation Society booklet: "The only grounds upon which a rational decision can be made are those of safety and efficacy."

That fluoridation is a treatment for people, not water, seems obvious.  Water has no teeth, as far as I know.  Nevertheless fluoridation is referred to solely as a water treatment in the fluoride propaganda.  Why?  With the chemical "redirected" into the water the councillor can fudge away any reservations he might have had about his amateur medical activities.  Playing God is much more his normal line of work, and He doesn't want His water to be the only one left containing the wrong amount.  Any fluoridated people are a purely medical matter.  Unless the news is good, the consequences, he is invited to believe, are nothing to do with him.

All you need is confidence to act, goes the story, and half the dentists in town will be packing their bags, bound, presumably, for some other "deficient" area.

Fluoridated on and off since 1970, Lincoln people were recently offered a special card with which they could vote for, but not against, fluoridation.

Fluoridation may be a scientific procedure. Unfortunately the science being applied is of the mass-brainwash variety, not the medical-dental variety.

Responsibility for the act of fluoridation is spread around; one authority pays, another one does the work, yet another votes that it should be done.

* * *

WHEN DOES THE END

JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

Speaking of compulsory medical activities, the supposedly elusive nature of who is actually responsible for fluoridation reminds me of the euthanasia programme in Germany, when the Nazis started gassing psychiatric patients and the congenitally disabled.

The programme was divided between three organisations, Reicharbeitsgemeinschaft (Reich Labour Association), "Stiftung" (Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care) and the Patients' Transport Corporation.

A report on each patient in a mental institution was sent to the Reich Ministry of the Interior.  Photostats were made and so-called experts then expressed their medical opinion on the questionnaires to the Reicharbeitsgemeinschaft.  A list was made of the candidates for gassing.  There was no examination of the patient by the "experts"

The "Stiftung" was in charge of the financial side of the programme, while the Patients' Transport Corporation was used to move the patients from one institution to another, to collecting points and finally to the euthanasia stations themselves.

Reicharbeitsgemeinschaft, "Stiftung" and Patients' Transport Corporation were in fact camouflaged names for the operation of the Euthanasia Programme.

An interesting feature is that, insofar as they were aware of their function in the process, those involved believed they were morally correct in their actions according to the priorities of the time (Nazism, the war effort, wounded soldiers versus "useless eaters").

In 1940 the Euthanasia Programme was extended to the concentration camps.

Clearly, an oppressor can rationalize any barbarity, and spreading the blame around certainly helps.

* * *

MALICE IN WURZEL-LAND?

In a Lincoln County Court case, Anglian Water v Bohan the water authority claimed payment for a fluoridated water supply.

I counterclaimed for the cost of bottled water since fluoridation's reintroduction at Lincoln in January 1984, and damages for the cost, difficulty, inconvenience and stress involved in researching the extensively-documented dangers of fluoride.

Mutual inspection of documents in Anglian Water v Bohan took place over several days in early 1987.  At Anglian Water's request I took numerous files down to their Lincoln offices.  But their inspection of my documents on fluoride poisoning from fluoridated water and other sources appeared cursory.

Anglian Water's documents revealed a goldmine of new evidence against fluoridation at the inspection, which had to be re-enforced by court order on 3 December 1986.

Anglian Water then invited the Court to dismiss my case upon procedural grounds, which meant, of course, not hearing evidence from either the victims of fluoridation or expert witnesses.  The water authority succeeded.

If some cockroach control operative decided to do away with his wife with a steady daily dose of fluoride insecticide, he would be (hopefully) caught by the police and convicted.  Are people surprised when someone important doses us with the same substance, poisonous at any dose, and gets away with it?  Unfortunately not.

Whilst a gentleman might resign his job rather than foist upon people a lifelong medical treatment which he is unauthorised to administer, one who knowingly assaults others by poisoning their water might be expected to cover his tracks.

Legalisation, separation of duties and indemnities all help the fluoridationists imply a mens rea vacuum of Seveso/Silkwood/Bhopal-type proportions —when we all know something is terribly wrong, but nothing can be done without someone to blame.

Need we wonder why propagandists intone lies for whose consequences they can never be held to account?  If a chemical that famous for its safety poisons a customer, those responsible can simply wave their leaflet.  Thus armed, the Lincoln Twenty voted to feed 100,000 people waste from the local fertilizer factory.  But it's OK, folks, because no-one can prove they meant any harm.

* * *

WHOSE RIGHT?

Anglian Water's abandonment of its rates claim for the fluoridated period preceding the Act reaffirms the illegality of pre-Act fluoridation.

Anglian has declared that it is only honouring an existing agreement to fluoridate made by Lincoln and District Water Board, in which authority Lincoln City Council played a dominant role.

I believe that it is morally wrong and also illegal for Councillors to have exercised medical jurisdiction.

Those responsible for the furtherance of fluoridation, to the extent that human body chemistry has been manipulated and free will threatened or interfered with, should receive the same treatment afforded to any unqualified or unauthorized person who administers or assists with forced medication—be it harmful or not.

The na´vetÚ of the pro-fluoride claims and the enormity of scale of this insult to human dignity, to human health, to the health of animals, plants and the environment we all share, seem paradoxically to be the biggest factors operating in fluoridation's favour.

If fluoridation is a medical matter (but not a medicine) why can't the doctors assume all the responsibility themselves?  Apart from the, er...waste disposal, why are these committees invited to help carry the can?

It's not public consultation—the Public Protection meeting was an obscure, unpublicised affair—but an attempt to legitimise an illegitimate process.

Of any number of possible biochemical alterations in the fluoride recipients, none will be sought.  So maintaining it has no evidence of adverse effects is easy and cheap enough for the pro-fluoride department.

Sweden repealed its fluoridation law after challenging the promoters to produce their safety evidence.  There was none.  The Lincoln Twenty might as well have relied on the integrity of a fluoride-promoting parrot.

The Twenty did not bother to think.  Will they be treated equally under the law?  Will the consumers?

 

Julian Bohan

22 November 1989