Fluoride Clinical Trials

Waiting for an internal review by Department of Health of their handling of this request.

Dear Department of Health,

I would like to see any clinical studies you have linking fluoride
with an increase in dental health.
I require these trials to be independant, double-blind and placebo
controlled. All of these criteria must be satisfied.

I also request any other studies you have with respect to
neurological effects and physical effects on organs of the body.
I thank you in advance.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.
This is an acknowledgement - it does not require a response.
Where a reply is appropriate we aim to send one within 20 working days.
If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]Department's website where a
response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on
0845 4647 or visit [2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]Directgov, the UK Government's Official information website, or the
Department of Health website's [4]Frequently Asked Questions.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. Department's website
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
4. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm

Dear Department of Health,

Further to my FOI request on which I am awaiting a response, you have previously issued a document entitled 'Guidance on the Fluoridation of Drinking Water'.

I notice that the Water Company does not have to comply with fluoridation UNTIL the Secretary of State has given them an Indemnity against damages incurred in the fluoridation of the water.

If fluoridation is so safe, why the Indemnity clause?

Relevant quote is below.

"31. Under section 87(2) of the 1991 Act a water undertaker is not
required to enter into arrangements with an SHA to fluoridate a
water supply until the Secretary of State has granted it an indemnity
against liabilities it may incur in complying with fluoridation
arrangements."

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.
This is an acknowledgement - it does not require a response.
Where a reply is appropriate we aim to send one within 20 working days.
If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]Department's website where a
response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on
0845 4647 or visit [2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]Directgov, the UK Government's Official information website, or the
Department of Health website's [4]Frequently Asked Questions.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. Department's website
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
4. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm

Department of Health

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Long Email Body 14 12 2010.html

    21K Download

Email Content stored in attached file 'Long_Email_Body_14_12_2010.html'.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Department of Health,

Thank you for your recent reply.
However, it is not satisfactory.

You claim not to hold information in the form that I have requested. If the Department of Health does not hold this information, then I respectfully ask you to specify who does.

The only accepted scientific method of trials is the double-blind randomised placebo controlled method.

If such trials do not exist to support water fluoridation, then why are we fluoridating water?
If the case is so strong in favour of fluoride, why aren't there any trials that satisfy my specified criteria?

Of the sources you provide, the York University review
is particularly critical of the scientific methods (or lack thereof) used.
They themselves state that there are no randomised, controlled trials.

They also state that there is a lack of appropriate analysis in which studies fail to use accepted methods of analysis common at the time of the study.

Yet none of these sources recommend a thorough trial using the correct scientific protocol which I have outlined in my request.

How are the levels of ingestion of fluoride controlled when it is added to water and milk? Are we limited to a safe number of glasses of water? What about the fluoridated water contained in foods?

Toothpaste in America warns that you should contact a Pioson Control Center if a pea-sized amount of toothpaste is ingested. This amount of toothpaste contains about the same amount of fluoride as a glass of fluoridated water. Should I contact the hospital after I have drunk a glass of water?

In layman's terms, the whole thing stinks of fraudulent science and of certain special interests pushing the whole fluoridation agenda.

Also, if fluoridation is so safe, why does the Secretary of State grant an indemnity to water companies absolving them of any liability damage in said fluoridation? I am chasing a separate FOI request to see a copy of this indemnity provided by the Secretary of State.

So, I respectfully ask again.
If you do not hold the information in the form which I requested, please tell me who does.
If no such trials exist using this correct scientific method, then please confirm this.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.
This is an acknowledgement - it does not require a response.
Where a reply is appropriate we aim to send one within 20 working days.
If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]Department's website where a
response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on
0845 4647 or visit [2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]Directgov, the UK Government's Official information website, or the
Department of Health website's [4]Frequently Asked Questions.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. Department's website
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
4. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm

Department of Health

Our ref: DE00000574464

Dear Mr Allport,

Thank you for your email of 9 December about fluoridation. I have been
asked to reply.

The duty on the Secretary of State for Health to provide indemnities to
water companies, who are adjusting the fluoride content of the water they
supply to the one part per million level, was introduced in 1985. This
was at the request of the water companies who were concerned that
fluoridation is a public health measure on which they do not have the same
knowledge and expertise as the Department of Health.

In the subsequent 25 years the Department has only paid one sum under the
indemnity. This was not on account of any ill effects of fluoridation,
but to compensate a water company for costs arising from a consumer who
refused to pay his water rates on account of his opposition to
fluoridation.

I hope that this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Heaton
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health
24 December 2010

show quoted sections

Dear Department of Health,

Thank you for your supplemental reply.

The water companies are wise to ask for this indemnity as more and more FULLY SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMATE studies are showing numerous dangers with this toxic waste.

There are now 24 CONTROLLED studies that link fluoride ingestion with lowering of IQ. These studies found that the levels at which these IQ drops were incurred were within the guidelines of 'safe levels', namely at 1.7 ppm. This value is very close to the 1ppm added in fluoridated areas. Close enough to warrant the question as to how the dosage is controlled when added to water.

The history of this madness makes for very interesting reading and the chemist, George Cox, who actually SOLD this madness to the authorities is both a criminal and a VERY astute businessman.

The Nazis also recognised the value of fluoride in inducing docility in their prisoners, making them easier to manage. Historical fact.

However, my question remains. How is it possible to regulate dosage of fluoride when it is added to water and many food items as a consequence?

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Dear Department of Health,

Just as an addendum to my previous reply, I still require an answer on why there have been no fully controlled scientific studies using the double-blind randomised placebo controlled method.

'League tables' are not scientific and can be influenced by other factors and are also open to interpretation.

If the case in favour of fluoride is so strong, then these trials should have been completed and support this case.

Why is it so problematic to find these trials which are common, accepted methods of scientific analysis?

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.
This is an acknowledgement - it does not require a response.
Where a reply is appropriate we aim to send one within 20 working days.
If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]Department's website where a
response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on
0845 4647 or visit [2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]Directgov, the UK Government's Official information website, or the
Department of Health website's [4]Frequently Asked Questions.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. Department's website
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
4. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm

Department of Health

Our ref: DE00000575732

10 January 2011

Dear Mr Allport

Thank you for your further email of 14 December responding to our reply to
your Freedom of information request (our ref: DE00000573122) about
clinical studies linking fluoride with improvements in dental health.

As we have indicated, we do not consider it would possible to conduct a
double blind and placebo controlled trial with fluoride as traces of
fluoride are present in all drinking water and many food products and it
would not be possible to control people's use of fluoridate toothpaste and
other topical fluoride products. Nor would it be possible to control
movement of people to and from the areas in which the experimental and
control groups were located.

The Department is however committed to a programme of research to
strengthen the evidence base on the effects of fluoridation in accordance
with the recommendations of the York report. In 2003 we commissioned a
study on the bioavailability (absorption) of fluoride from the University
of Newcastle which is available at:
[1]http://www.ncl.ac.uk/dental/research/die...
And we are supporting a current research project into the extent and
severity of dental fluorosis.

As the York report indicates, a new fluoridation scheme would provide an
excellent opportunity to undertake prospective research and we are keeping
closely in touch with developments on the proposed scheme for Southampton.
As you may be aware the decision to fluoridate Southampton is currently
the subject of a judicial review.

Finally, the duty on the Secretary of State for Health to provide
indemnities to water companies, who are adjusting the fluoride content of
the water they supply to the 1 part per million level, was introduced in
1985. This was at the request of the water companies who were concerned
that fluoridation is a public health measure on which they do not have the
same knowledge and expertise as the Department of Health. In the
subsequent 25 years, the Department has only paid one sum under the
indemnity. This was not on account of any ill effects of fluoridation,
but to compensate a water company for costs arising from a consumer who
refused to pay his water rates on account of his opposition to
fluoridation.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the
right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be
submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your
original letter and should be addressed to:

Head of the Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health
Room 317
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NS

Email: [2][email address]

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally,
the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints
procedure provided by the Department. The ICO can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Colin McDonald
FOI Casework Manager

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/dental/research/die...
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear Department of Health,

Thank you for your recent reply.
However, there are some concerns that were not answered.

1)How is it possible to regulate the dosage of a drug when it is added to the water supply?
The 24 studies that link relatively low levels of fluoride (1.7ppm) to neural problems such as marked lowering of IQ. This is alarmingly close to the 1ppm level added by the water companies. Should we regulate our ingestion of water?

2)The recent warnings in the National Academy of Science report that fluoride levels need to be lowered.

3)The flawed 'evidence' provided by the BASCD in their league tables comparing same age children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. Fluoride delays the formation of teeth and the incidence of caries is clearly proportional to the number of existing teeth.
If there are less teeth in these same age children, there are naturally less caries.

4)The overstatement of 'evidence'. The caries figures refer to tooth surfaces and not teeth. The savings of less than one tooth SURFACE must be weighed against the dangers of toxic substance ingestion.

5)The avoidance of studies of older children and adults as this data clearly shows no dental benefit to fluoride for reasons discussed in point 3).

6) The corrupt history of the inception of this ludicrous idea of adding a toxic byproduct to the water supply.

7)The fact that Science has been compromised by business as shown by the former President of the BASCD which compiled the Dental Health data
being now registered as a Director of the British Fluoridation Society.
The whole thing is corrupt.

I would appreciate it if you could address these issues one by one in your reply so that I can try to make some sense of this madness. As it currently stands, I have lost faith in the integrity of the medical profession.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.
This is an acknowledgement - it does not require a response.
Where a reply is appropriate we aim to send one within 20 working days.
If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]Department's website where a
response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on
0845 4647 or visit [2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]Directgov, the UK Government's Official information website, or the
Department of Health website's [4]Frequently Asked Questions.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. Department's website
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
4. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm

Dear Department of Health,
With regards to my FOI request, a study by Harvard scientists that found links with bone cancer in young boys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/j...

The evidence AGAINST fluoride is overwhelming. Adding a substance to water removes ANY control over said substance.
Why has Science been compromised by big business in this way?

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.
This is an acknowledgement - it does not require a response.
Where a reply is appropriate we aim to send one within 20 working days.
If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]Department's website where a
response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on
0845 4647 or visit [2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]Directgov, the UK Government's Official information website, or the
Department of Health website's [4]Frequently Asked Questions.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. Department's website
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
4. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm

Dear Department of Health,

I am still awaiting a your explanation on the points I have raised. If you require me to forward a separate request for this, would you please indicate this in your response.
For your convenience, I have copied the my questions below.

1)How is it possible to regulate the dosage of a drug when it is
added to the water supply?
The 24 studies that link relatively low levels of fluoride (1.7ppm)
to neural problems such as marked lowering of IQ. This is
alarmingly close to the 1ppm level added by the water companies.
Should we regulate our ingestion of water?

2)The recent warnings in the National Academy of Science report
that fluoride levels need to be lowered.

3)The flawed 'evidence' provided by the BASCD in their league
tables comparing same age children in fluoridated and
non-fluoridated areas. Fluoride delays the formation of teeth and
the incidence of caries is clearly proportional to the number of
existing teeth.
If there are less teeth in these same age children, there are
naturally less caries.

4)The overstatement of 'evidence'. The caries figures refer to
tooth surfaces and not teeth. The savings of less than one tooth
SURFACE must be weighed against the dangers of toxic substance
ingestion.

5)The avoidance of studies of older children and adults as this
data clearly shows no dental benefit to fluoride for reasons
discussed in point 3).

6) The corrupt history of the inception of this ludicrous idea of
adding a toxic byproduct to the water supply.

7)The fact that Science has been compromised by business as shown
by the former President of the BASCD which compiled the Dental
Health data
being now registered as a Director of the British Fluoridation
Society.
The whole thing is corrupt.

I would appreciate it if you could address these issues one by one
in your reply so that I can try to make some sense of this madness.
As it currently stands, I have lost faith in the integrity of the
medical profession.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Dear Department of Health,

I am still awaiting a your explanation on the points I have raised. If you require me to forward a separate request for this, would you please indicate this in your response.
For your convenience, I have copied the my questions below.

1)How is it possible to regulate the dosage of a drug when it is
added to the water supply?
The 24 studies that link relatively low levels of fluoride (1.7ppm)
to neural problems such as marked lowering of IQ. This is
alarmingly close to the 1ppm level added by the water companies.
Should we regulate our ingestion of water?

2)The recent warnings in the National Academy of Science report
that fluoride levels need to be lowered.

3)The flawed 'evidence' provided by the BASCD in their league
tables comparing same age children in fluoridated and
non-fluoridated areas. Fluoride delays the formation of teeth and
the incidence of caries is clearly proportional to the number of
existing teeth.
If there are less teeth in these same age children, there are
naturally less caries.

4)The overstatement of 'evidence'. The caries figures refer to
tooth surfaces and not teeth. The savings of less than one tooth
SURFACE must be weighed against the dangers of toxic substance
ingestion.

5)The avoidance of studies of older children and adults as this
data clearly shows no dental benefit to fluoride for reasons
discussed in point 3).

6) The corrupt history of the inception of this ludicrous idea of
adding a toxic byproduct to the water supply.

7)The fact that Science has been compromised by business as shown
by the former President of the BASCD which compiled the Dental
Health data
being now registered as a Director of the British Fluoridation
Society.
The whole thing is corrupt.

I would appreciate it if you could address these issues one by one
in your reply so that I can try to make some sense of this madness.
As it currently stands, I have lost faith in the integrity of the
medical profession.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

1 Attachment

DE00000578275

Dear Mr Allport,

Thank you for your further emails of 26 January in response to mine of 24
December (our ref: DE00000574464) about water fluoridation. I hope you
will accept this as a response to both of your emails.

As I explained in my previous e-mail, it is not possible to conduct a
double blind randomised placebo controlled trial of a population based
intervention like the fluoridation of water.

The Department of Health is not aware of any robust evidence of a
detrimental effect on children's IQ from water in which the fluoride
content has been adjusted to the one part per million level used in
fluoridation schemes in England.

In conducting the consultation on the fluoridation of Southampton and
parts of South West Hampshire, South Central Strategic Health Authority
commissioned an independent critical appraisal of selected studies
reporting an association between fluoride in drinking water and IQ. The
report of the appraisal by Bazian Ltd, a consultancy of medical doctors,
health research analysts, information specialists and public health
experts, found that the study design and methods used in many of the
studies had serious limitations. For example, as the amount of naturally
occurring fluoride in drinking water and from other sources, and the
socioeconomic characteristics in the areas studied was different from
those found in the UK, the studies did not have direct application to the
local population of Southampton. I attach a copy of the report for your
information.

The adjustment of the level of fluoride in water is controlled by
stringent safety regulations and a detailed technical code of practice
issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and
enforced by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. There are several features
of the code to ensure that only the right concentration of fluoride is
achieved and maintained. Continuous electronic monitoring takes place.

The Department acknowledges that fluoride from other sources needs to be
taken into account. Intakes from food are measured in the `Total Diet
Study' (TDS) undertaken by the Food Standards Agency. The mean population
intake for fluoride from the 1997 TDS was estimated to be 1.2
mg/person/day. Major sources of fluoride in the diet were beverages and
fish. Similar studies were undertaken in 1984 and 1978 and show that
intakes from these sources have remained generally constant. There has
therefore been little change in intake since the optimum level for
adjusting the fluoride content of water was set at the current level of 1
part per million.

Finally, the Department is not aware of any evidence showing that fluoride
was administered in prisoner of war camps during the Second World War.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Heaton
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health
26 January 2011

show quoted sections

Dear Department of Health,

Thank you for your reply.
Basically, it seems that the Bazian report is critical of ALL the studies conducted. Yet the sheer number of these studies should raise certain questions.

If these particular studies are inaccurate and yet enough concern exists to analyse the studies, why haven't scientifically legitimate studies of the calibre needed to satisfy Bazian been carried out yet?

Also, there are a number of my points that you have still failed to address. I shall copy and paste these points from my original request.

2)The recent warnings in the National Academy of Science report
that fluoride levels need to be lowered.
(currently, in America, the levels of 1.2ppm are to be lowered to 0.7ppm as there are high incidences of fluorosis)

3)The flawed 'evidence' provided by the BASCD in their league
tables comparing same age children in fluoridated and
non-fluoridated areas. Fluoride delays the formation of teeth and
the incidence of caries is clearly proportional to the number of
existing teeth.
If there are less teeth in these same age children, there are
naturally less caries.
(Can you confirm that fluoride delays formation of teeth. If so, then these league tables would likewise be criticised by the Bazian report. Subjects studied should be on a like for like basis, including number of teeth)

4)The overstatement of 'evidence'. The caries figures refer to
tooth surfaces and not teeth. The savings of less than one tooth
SURFACE must be weighed against the dangers of toxic substance
ingestion.
(more effort should be put into clarifying what these figures mean. Most people assume the figures relate to whole teeth)

6) The corrupt history of the inception of this ludicrous idea of
adding a toxic byproduct to the water supply.
(the involvement of George Cox in turning a dangerous hazardous by-product of fertiliser plants and aluminium plants into a valued commodity)

7)The fact that Science has been compromised by business as shown
by the former President of the BASCD which compiled the Dental
Health data
being now registered as a Director of the British Fluoridation
Society.
(This is akin to a manufacturer reviewing their own product)

Penultimately, regarding the use of fluoride (main ingredient in rat poison, sarin nerve gas and Prozac) by Nazis, I draw your attention to the letters from two eminent scientists.

The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from a research chemist by the name of Charles Perkins. He writes:

"I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, "The Truth about Water Fluoridation", to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. In the 1930's Hitler and the German Nazis envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient and cost-effective light lobotomy? --- Ott].

"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty."

"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communise the world."

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."

Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954.

Another letter needs to be quoted at length as well to help corroborate Mr. Perkin's testimony. This letter was written by a brilliant (and objectively honest) scientist named Dr. E.H. Bronner. Dr. Bronner was a nephew of the great Albert Einstein, served time in a WWII prison camp and wrote the following letter printed in the Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952:

"It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the 'next' on the agenda of the water poisoners.

"There is a sinister network of subversive agents, Godless intellectual parasites, working in our country today whose ramifications grow more extensive, more successful and more alarming each new year and whose true objective is to demoralize, paralyze and destroy our great Republic ---- from within if they can, according to their plan --- for their own possession."

"The tragic success they have already attained in their long siege to destroy the moral fiber of American life is now one of their most potent footholds towards their own ultimate victory over us."

"Fluoridation of our community water systems can well become their most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental deterioration. As a research chemist of established standing, I built within the past 22 years 3 American chemical plants and licensed 6 of my 53 patents. Based on my years of practical experience in the health food and chemical field, let me warn: fluoridation of drinking water is criminal insanity, sure national suicide. DON'T DO IT!!"

"Even in very small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it is the most effective rat-killer. Sodium Fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature, in God's great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body; whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate it."

"Careful, bonafide laboratory experimentation by conscientious, patriotic research chemists, and actual medical experience, have both revealed that instead of preserving or promoting 'dental health', fluoridated drinking water destroys teeth before adulthood and after, by the destructive mottling and other pathological conditions it actually causes in them, and also creates many other very grave pathological conditions in the internal organisms of bodies consuming it. How then can it be called a 'health plan'? What's behind it?"

"That any so-called 'Doctors' would persuade a civilized nation to add voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is unbelievable. It is the height of criminal insanity!"

"No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to 1941 that, quoting from both Lenin's 'Last Will' and Hitler's Mein Kampf: "America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within."

"Are our Civil Defense organizations and agencies awake to the perils of water poisoning by fluoridation? Its use has been recorded in other countries. Sodium Fluoride water solutions are the cheapest and most effective rat killers known to chemists: colorless, odorless, tasteless; no antidote, no remedy, no hope: Instant and complete extermination of rats."

Finally, I would appreciate it if you would give me details of the sources used for the Sodium Fluoride added to water in fluoridated areas.

Would you stand by and allow your children to be poisoned by this if there is ABSOLUTELY ANY DOUBT REGARDING IT'S SAFETY?

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Dear Department of Health,

Just another piece of relevant information for your perusal. I'm sure that given enough resources, these accounts can be verified.

FLUORIDE UPDATE. AUGUST 1993

Recent disclosures show the danger of fluoride and the suppression of damaging information from the Public.

FRIDAY MAY 15, 1992, WILLIAM MARCUS, Ph.D, Chief Toxicology Officer and senior advisor at the Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) was fired for his disclosures of fracture, carcinogenic, and other health and life threatening effects of fluoridation.

FOR MORE INFO CONTACT: FRANK FAZZARI AT FDA 301-295-8073 - DR. WM. MARCUS (301) 972-0707, DR. ROBT. CARTON, (301) 874-2948 OR (301) 619-2004, FORMER PRESIDENT EPA SCIENTIST UNION.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Dear Department of Health,

With reference to my recent correspondence, I forgot to also ask you to answer the question on why there are no league tables on children over a certain age.
I would hazard a guess that this is because any perceived 'advantage' of fluoridating water disappears once the teeth have universally formed.

This relates to my Question 3) in which I ask how these league tables can be considered legitimate when fluoridation delays tooth formation and thus comparing groups of children with differing numbers of developed teeth. Chances of tooth decay is obviously directly proportional to number of teeth.

I would be grateful if you would answer this and my other concerns which you failed to address in my original request.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.
This is an acknowledgement - it does not require a response.
Where a reply is appropriate we aim to send one within 20 working days.
If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]Department's website where a
response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on
0845 4647 or visit [2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]Directgov, the UK Government's Official information website, or the
Department of Health website's [4]Frequently Asked Questions.

Please note: as of 31 March 2011 it will no longer be possible to contact
the Department of Health through the DHMail email address. Please visit
the [5]contact page on the Department's website.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. Department's website
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
4. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
5. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/ContactUs/DH_066...

Department of Health

Our ref: DE00000586709

Dear Mr Allport,

Thank you for your further three emails of 26 January about fluoridation.

I note that officials in the Department of Health have replied to you on
fluoridation on a number of occasions.

I am afraid that, as you have raised no new issue, the Department can add
nothing further to the matter and it must now consider this matter to be
closed. Unless you raise a new question any further letters sent to the
Department will be logged but will not receive a reply.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Heaton
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health
3 February 2011

show quoted sections

Dear Department of Health,

As you have still not answered certain questions and you are failing to recognise these questions as legitimate concerns both from a medical viewpoint and an ethical viewpoint, I have taken out a separate request to yourselves that more concisely clarifies the questions I require answers to.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Long Email Body 07 07 2011.html

    5K Download

Email Content stored in attached file 'Long_Email_Body_07_07_2011.html'.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Trevor Allport

Dear Department of Health,

Thank you for your eventual reply. I would not like to think that the DoH are intentionally avoiding this question as that would be indicative of a very disturbing corruption lurking within the hierarchy.

You claim that you are not aware of any evidence regarding retarding tooth eruption except for the mention in the York Review.
I respectfully suggest to you that you are not up to date on the research which, in itself, is somewhat disturbing.

The evidence for the delayed teeth eruption is in an FOI request issued to ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health).

The following link will explain everything.

http://www.fluorideaustralia.org/article...

I find it difficult to believe that the DoH was unaware of this research and leads me to conclude that there are some powerful people manipulating the Department.

Now first of all, I would like the department to acknowledge that there IS INDEED evidence to support delayed teeth eruption of up to two years.

Secondly, I would like the Department to acknowledge that their most quoted study, The York Review, states quite plainly that this confounding factor of teeth eruption was most definitely NOT taken into consideration.

Thirdly and finally, I request the acknowledgement from the Department that the York Review COUPLED with the evidence obtained from ARCPOH destroys ANY justification for water fluoridation as any PERCEIVED BENEFIT is negated by the skewed data derived from these 'league tables'.

I await your reply with interest and look forward to you removing this poison from our water supplies.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Dear Department of Health,

Further to my recent reply and request for acknowledgement of the issues I have discussed,
the dental health surveys that you have indicated show only a very small reduction in caries in West Midlands compared to the NorthWest.

For example, the difference in mean filled teeth between these two areas is 0.95 - 0.68 = 0.27. So that is to say that there is a reduction in mean filled teeth of slightly more than ONE QUARTER of one tooth.

Similarly, the difference in mean missing teeth between these two areas is 0.54 -0.34 =0.2. So there is a reduction in missing teeth of ONE FIFTH of ONE TOOTH.

Forgive me if I am not totally astounded by the caries prevention power of this arsenic, lead and mercury-ridden poison being dumped into our drinking water.

Am I missing the point here?

According to data that you yourselves have supplied,we are ignoring demonstrable health risks in polluting our water with this hyped toxic nonsense all for the sake of a saving of ONE FIFTH OF ONE TOOTH?

I respectfully request that you acknowledge the three points I have indicated in my previous correspondence.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.
This is an acknowledgement - please do not reply to this email.
Where a reply is appropriate we aim to send one within 20 working days.
If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]Department's website where a
response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on
0845 4647 or visit [2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]Directgov, the UK Government's Official information website, or the
Department of Health website's [4]Frequently Asked Questions.

Please note that the Department of Health does not process complaints
about the NHS or social services. If you wish to make a complaint about a
healthcare professional, an NHS organisation or a social care provider,
please visit the '[5]Making a complaint' page on the Department's website.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. Department's website
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
4. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
5. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/ContactUs/Compla...

Sent a follow up to Department of Health again.

Department of Health

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Long Email Body 01 08 2011.html

    4K Download

Email Content stored in attached file 'Long_Email_Body_01_08_2011.html'.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Department of Health,

Thank you for your reply but I am afraid that it raises some very deep concerns.

I am disturbed by your casual dismissal of the evidence of delayed tooth eruption as this delay obviously is indicative of a physiological effect on the body other than that which is desired.

As you and I both know, the most likely mechanism for this delay is the effect of the H2SiF6 on the thyroid gland.

It is well known that doctors in the past have prescribed 'fluoride' in order to modify the action of patient's thyroid glands.

Why is it that any negative effects such as this are routinely ignored and the use of this substance is unconditionally defended? Why is research into the negative aspects such as this action on the thyroid gland not being carried out. You claim that there is no evidence of harm. How can one find when one does not look?

This evidence of delayed eruption of teeth obviously illustrates a physiological effect on the human body, a defining parameter in the definition of a medicine.
Why does the DoH deny that artificially fluoridated water is a medicine?

Despite your conversion of the caries statistics into a percentage, I still find it ludicrous. The baseline caries level is so low anyway due to increased hygiene etc that even a large percentage of a small value is STILL going to be a small value. Quoting percentages in this case, can be very misleading.

To summarise, I still require an answer on the mechanism of delay in the evidence provided.
There are grounds to suspect a strong action on the thyroid gland; a very worrying thought considering entire populations are being subjected to this modification without prescription.

I also require an answer as to why further research into this 'delay' is not being carried out. Indeed, the evidence itself was NOT PUBLISHED and only became available via a Freedom of Information request.
Why is the medical mainstream so guarded about these negative aspects and insist on promoting this scrubbed waste?

Finally, fluoridated water obviously is having a physiological effect on the human body. This, by definition, makes it a medicine. Why is it not classed as such?

I look forward to your reply and hope to reach an amicable conclusion to this discussion.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Richard Gillard left an annotation ()

Dear DoH

Please may I draw your attention to this:

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=42652E035A... ?

Department of Health

Our ref: DE00000635873

Dear Mr Allport,

Thank you for your further email of 2 August to the Department of Health
about water fluoridation. I have been asked to reply.

I note that you have written to the Department about the issue of tooth
eruption and water fluoridation on several occasions previously. I was
sorry to read that you were not satisfied with my colleague's previous
reply. However, the information given to you is the most up-to-date and
accurate available, and there is nothing further I can add on this matter.

With regard to your concerns that fluoridation is not considered a
medicine, I should explain that the decision as to whether a product falls
within the definition of a medicinal product is made by the Medicines
Borderline Section of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory
Agency (MHRA).

The MHRA determines whether a product is a medicine with reference to the
definition of `medicine' in Article 1 of European Directive 2001/83,
relevant legal precedent and its own published guidance. The MHRA has
ruled that neither the fluoride added to drinking water, nor the resulting
fluoridated water, are medicinal products and marketing authorisations are
not required, as for medicines.

The MHRA appreciates that the question of water fluoridation is one that
raises strong emotions. The MHRA has looked at the status of fluoridated
drinking water under medicines legislation on a number of occasions since
the subject was first raised with the then Medicines Control Agency (MCA)
in 1999. The MCA did not believe that fluoridated drinking water was a
medicinal product then and the MHRA has not seen any material subsequently
that would lead it to a different conclusion.

Moreover, the Department considers that fluoridation is compatible with
the European Convention on Human Rights because no new scheme can be
introduced before there has been a public consultation in the area that
would be affected. In addition, the European Commission on Human Rights
decided in 1992 that any interference with the right to respect for
private and family life was justified by the benefits that fluoridation
brings to oral health.

I hope this reply clarifies the Department's position.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Hawkins
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health

show quoted sections

Dear Department of Health,

Thank you for your reply but yet again, you appear to have replied WITHOUT answering the question.

You have acknowledged that there is evidence for delayed teeth eruption in fluoridated areas. There is clearly a physiological effect occurring WITHIN the human body which is likely to be thyroid related.

The thing that concerns me is that initially you claim that you had no knowledge of evidence of such a physiological effect. The second thing which concerns me is that having acknowledged this, you have no intention of researching this potentially dangerous effect on the body.

So I ask again. Why is this research not being done?

The MHRA states that fluoridated water is not a medicinal product as defined by Article 1 of the European Directive 2001/83.
I will quote that short paragraph.

‘2. Medicinal product:
(a) Any substance or combination of substances
presented as having properties for treating or
preventing disease in human beings; or
(b) Any substance or combination of substances
which may be used in or administered to
human beings either with a view to restoring,
correcting or modifying physiological functions
by exerting a pharmacological, immunological
or metabolic action, or to making a medical
diagnosis.’

Looking at the definition above, fluoridated water is CLEARLY a medicine. It is administered with a view to preventing dental caries or disease; as a method of restoration or correction. It also has a physiological effect on the body as we have just discussed.

So what makes this different from ANY OTHER medicine?

You claim that the MHRA has not seen any material that would lead them to reclassify fluoridated water as a medicine, yet you admit that the DoH was not aware of the evidence I have provided and which you now acknowledge.

How can one find if one does not look?

You then claim that fluoridation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because there is a public consultation in the area affected.
The public consultation in Southampton voted overwhelmingly (72%) to reject fluoridation, but it went ahead anyway. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ham...

To what purpose do we have a consultation?

Please answer my questions in your next reply instead of quoting what you have been told to say. It seems that the DoH has been compromised by corporate and political interests and is no longer concerned with the health of the people. You are very dangerous people indeed as your very position in society invites unconditional trust.

I await your prompt response.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Department of Health

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.
This is an acknowledgement - please do not reply to this email.
Where a reply is appropriate we aim to send one within 20 working days.
If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or
social care campaign, please visit the [1]Department's website where a
response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on
0845 4647 or visit [2]NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to
[3]Directgov, the UK Government's Official information website, or the
Department of Health website's [4]Frequently Asked Questions.

Please note that the Department of Health does not process complaints
about the NHS or social services. If you wish to make a complaint about a
healthcare professional, an NHS organisation or a social care provider,
please visit the '[5]Making a complaint' page on the Department's website.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. Department's website
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
2. http://www.nhs.uk/
3. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
4. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FAQ/index.htm
5. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/ContactUs/Compla...

Department of Health

Our ref: DE00000640173

Dear Mr Allport

Thank you for your further email of 25 August about clinical studies to
support water fluoridation. I have again been asked to reply.

You requested that your email be treated under the Freedom of Information
(FOI) Act. However, as you asked for general information rather than
requesting recorded information, on this occasion the Department of Health
has not considered your correspondence under the provisions of the FOI
Act.

I note that you had previously asked for information on clinical studies
to support water fluoridation on 14 December and that Colin McDonald, the
Department's then FOI Casework Manager, responded to you on 10 January
(our ref: DE00000575732).

The situation since then has not changed. As Mr McDonald advised, the
Department does not consider that it would be possible to conduct a double
blind and placebo controlled trial with fluoride, as traces of fluoride
are present in all drinking water and in many food products. Therefore,
it would not be possible to control people's use of fluoride toothpaste
and other topical fluoride products. Nor would it be possible to control
the movement of people to and from the areas in which the experimental and
control groups were located.

Furthermore, in addition to what Mr McDonald said about research, the
Department remains committed to a programme of research to strengthen the
evidence base on the effects of fluoridation in accordance with the
recommendations of the York report and this has been covered in detail in
earlier correspondence between you and the Department.

The information you have received from me and my Departmental colleagues
on clinical trials and other research is the most up-to-date and accurate
available, and there is nothing further I can add to this. The
Government's position remains as set out in previous letters.

I am sorry if this is not the reply that you were hoping for, but as there
is nothing further that the Department can add, we must now consider this
matter to be closed. Unless you raise a new question, any further letters
sent to the Department will be logged but may not receive a reply.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Heaton
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health
2 September 2011

show quoted sections

Dear Department of Health,

The clinical trials question has been dealt with months ago.
I request that you answer my correspondence of 25th August which has NOT been answered. I must advise you that I will be pursuing this matter UNTIL I get a reply.
I will also be telephoning yourselves as you seem to have , shall we say, DELIBERATELY misunderstood the current status of the request.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Dear Department of Health,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Health's handling of my FOI request 'Fluoride Clinical Trials'.

This is the SECOND time I have had to request an internal review from DoH. It seems that everytime I ask a question in which the answer may undermine the issue of fluoridation, you claim that you have answered everything and will reply no further.

Well basically, if the DoH does not answer my questions raised in my 25th August request, I shall contact as many outlets of the media that I can find that are not corporate and government controlled. I require the SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I RAISED on the 25th August to be answered. Mary Heaton seems to have DELIBERATELY returned to the INITIAL request in the thread as answering my question would further incriminate fluoridation.

I await a prompt response as I am flabbergasted that any intelligent person especially those with medical credentials, can ignore the points I have raised.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fl...

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Allport

Peter Bowyer left an annotation ()

You're not asking FoI questions. You're challenging policy. The FoI Act deals with requesting disclosure of recorded information, and no amount of internal review is going to make any difference here.

Trevor Allport left an annotation ()

I KNOW it's not an FOI.

But it's the ONLY way I can get answers from them.
Contact via the DoH website results in a deathly silence when you raise issues such as these.
It's because the pure weight of evidence against this practice is enormous.

I need those answers and I need them both for people who already LIVE in fluoridated areas and for the people who are to be subjected to this chemical attack in the near future.

Peter Bowyer left an annotation ()

Then I'd advise you try a different route. The FoI channel has a very narrow remit, and the authority has no obligation to step outside it. Since they've already told you they'll file and forget any future correspondence, I suspect you're wasting your time (and public money).

Richard Gillard left an annotation ()

Dear Mr. Bowyer

What, precisely should we do, if we happen to disagree with being medicated against our will and without our consent?

Where does it stop? If some idiot decides it is "good for us" to add cyanide or hydrofluoric acide to our water supply, should we simply sit back and take that too?

When did it become a problem to expect to be able to drink clean, unnadulterated tap water?

Peter Bowyer left an annotation ()

I don't know as I'm not a campaigning expert. But I do know the rules around FoI, and I'm trying to point out that a useful reply is unlikely. The questions being sent will get as far as an FoI case officer who will quickly determine there's no FoI-relevant request to answer and reject it.

FoI is not the place to challenge policy. Requesting an internal review of a request that has been ruled outside the scope of the FoIA is pointless and just wastes everyone's time.

Trevor Allport left an annotation ()

They have answered non-FOI here before. Like I say, it is the only channel on which I can get a response.

steve left an annotation ()

Trevor Allport, there is a battle to be fought with this, its all about where to put your biggest guns. I would suggest focusing on the core elements of the flouridation process, i.e the two main chemicals, which are "classed" has hazardous. This seems to me to be a difficult one for any govenment body to justify using in what is , the health of a taxpaying nation?? There is a chink in their not insmountable armour, and it is in this area , I`m sure. I intend to get more involved when i have done a lot more research. Dont give up ! , we need people like you! thankyou Steve clifford

Richard Gillard left an annotation ()

Why is the fact that we are being deliberately poisoned by a corrupt government not a Freedom of Information issue, Mr. Bowyer?

More to the point, if THAT is not a Freedom of Information matter, what, precisely, is?

Peter Bowyer left an annotation ()

No point grandstanding at me - as I've already said, I'm just pointing out what the FOIA is for and what its not, to try to save you multiple 20-day waits to get nothing useful back. FOI isn't about policy, its about recorded information. Make a request for a specific document or class of documents and you'll maybe get somewhere.

Richard Gillard left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Bowyer

I am not grasndstanding, old darling, I'm merely stating the facts. If you can't stand the heat, I suggest you get out of the kitchen. As far as I am aware, nobody invited you into this debate in the first place.

Regards

Richard Gillard

Peter Bowyer left an annotation ()

I was attempting to help you make better FOI requests. My mistake.

Richard Gillard left an annotation ()

If the questions Mr Alport is asking is too complex to be dealt with here, here is a nice simple question:

Why are the strategic health authorities instructing the water authorities to put hazardous waste in our drinking water?

bernie left an annotation ()

a new FLUORIDE CLINICAL TRIALS report has been published in the january edition of NUCLEAR MEDICINE COMMUNICATIONS highlighting the fact that MASS FLUORIDE EXPOSURE may be to blame for the CARDIOCASCULAR DISEASE EXPOSURE EPIDEMIC that takes more lives each year than cancer. IN 2008 CARDIOVASCULAR KILLED 17 MILLION PEOPLE go to ( www.greenmedinfo.com ) and read the report

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org