Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

In the Publics Interest and in accordance with Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like to make the following request;

1. In accordance with Water Industry Act 1991, section 87(1), it is clear that the request to the water undertaker to have the water fluoridated must be in WRITING; please evidence the written request to United Utilities Water Ltd to have the water fluoridated.
2. Provide a list of known potential contaminants within hexafluorosilicic acid.
3. Provide any data you may hold that shows Arsenic, Lead and Cadmium are group 1 carcinogens.
4. Provide all information surrounding the Indemnity provided to Water Undertakers in regards to Water Fluoridation and its purpose.
5. Provide all relevant information that outlines the purpose of Water Fluoridation in detail and all safety data in regards to its addition to the water supply.
6. If reports are to be believed, it would appear the pretences of water fluoridation use is to combat tooth decay, and therefore classifying it has a medical treatment and should be carried out under the relevant medical licences and qualifications, please provide the relevant license and qualifications held by those involved in this process.

Yours faithfully,

Shaun Robert Robertson

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

I refer you back to my questions as follows:

-Provide a list of known potential contaminants within hexafluorosilicic acid.

-Provide any data you may hold that shows Arsenic, Lead and Cadmium are group 1 carcinogens.

It was claimed in your response that you do not hold the information requested, I can confirm that from the above Arsenic and Cadmium are listed group 1 carcinogens, and are also listed as contaminants found within Hexafluorosilicic Acid. The Committee of Toxicity (COT) conclude and recommend that levels of Arsenic should be kept as low as reasonably possible:

1. Please provide all relevant safety data that is relevant to the consideration taken when adding Arsenic as a contaminant of Hexafluorosilicic Acid to the drinking water of humans, which inevitably affects the environment and its inhabitants also.

Despite water levels of this group 1 carcinogen being limited to 10mcg/litre, and claims of this limit being adhered to, it still has to be questioned why it is allowed to be added at all, since adherence to the Committee of Toxicity recommendation of ALARP, would be easier adhered to if all addition of this carcinogen were not permitted. There are a number of people who consume a higher level of water per day than others and this therefore put them at a unreasonable higher risk of severe ill effect on the back of consuming a vital and necessary source of life.

2. Please provide all data considered when wilfully adding a group 1 carcinogen to a vital source of life for all living beings on this planet.

3. Please provide all data considered when wilfully adding a group 1 carcinogen, for those who may consume a higher than average water intake. And what is the average water intake you base this from.

I provide a link to fact sheets produced by WHO in regards to Arsenic & Cadmium below:

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheet...

https://www.who.int/teams/environment-cl...

-If reports are to be believed, it would appear the pretences of water fluoridation use is to combat tooth decay, and therefore classifying it has a medical treatment and should be carried out under the relevant medical licences and qualifications, please provide the relevant license and qualifications held by those involved in this process.

It was claimed within your response that you do not hold the information requested, however you kindly provided some links to relevant information. All of the information within those links would indicate and confirm due to reference to NHS and the use of the word Health regularly on a regular basis, that water fluoridation is in fact a medical treatment, making the drinking water provide not in fact ‘Wholesome’, instead making it medicinal instead and therefore breaching patient rights by deceitfully medicating the public via a basic human right and vital life source.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency have classified Fluoridated Water as a food product, if this is to be true then it is illegal to claim medicinal purposes for its purpose, and all food regulations and laws must be adhered to. However this is not true at all, the pretences of
water fluoridation are to combat tooth decay, which clearly indicates its purpose is medicinal and is intended to exert a physiological effect on the body, of which it will to all inhabitants of the environment and places disodium hexaflourosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid firmly within the realms of a medicine and therefore governed by medicinal legislation, of which in accordance with
The Human Medicines Regulations 2012, section 2, these products clearly match the definition of a medicinal product provided. This fact indicates that the water provided is in fact, not Water(H20), it is in fact a medicine, intended to medicate the public for purpose of combatting tooth decay, and which will by way of default indeed medicate otherinhabitants of the world as it enters the environment and via different routes due to their need for water to sustain life.

Key Notes:
UK law firmly establishes the right of a patient to refuse medical treatment or any medical procedure, and this right is grounded in several key pieces of legislation and case law. Below is an overview of the legal framework related to patient consent:

Key Legislation:
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA):
• This act governs decision-making for individuals who may lack capacity. Under section 1, it explicitly protects the autonomy of individuals, stating that a person must be assumed to have capacity unless proven otherwise, and they have the right to make unwise decisions if they have
capacity.
• Importantly, even if refusing treatment might result in harm or death, a competent person’s refusal must be respected.

Common Law - The Doctrine of Informed Consent:
• Under common law, medical professionals have a legal duty to obtain a patient’s consent before proceeding with any treatment or procedure. The patient must be fully informed about the nature, risks, and benefits of the procedure to make an informed decision.
• In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, the Supreme Court held that patients have the right to be informed of any risks that would affect their decision to undergo treatment, reinforcing the doctrine of informed consent.

Human Rights Act 1998:
• Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, everyone has the right to respect for private and family life, which includes bodily integrity and the right to make decisions about one’s own body, including the refusal of medical treatment.
• This right to personal autonomy is only subject to interference in very specific circumstances, such as when it is necessary for public safety or to protect the health or rights of others.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014:
• Regulation 11 under these regulations provides that care and treatment of patients must only be provided with their consent.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) / Data Protection Act 2018:
• Although focused on data, GDPR principles apply to medical information. Medical professionals must ensure that personal data (including health data) is processed lawfully, meaning any medical procedure requiring consent should only proceed if that consent is freely given, informed, and unambiguous.

Important Case Law:
Re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1992] EWCA Civ 18:
• This case reaffirmed that a competent adult can refuse treatment, even if the refusal leads to death. As long as the patient has full capacity and is making an informed decision, their wishes must be respected.
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821:
• The court emphasized that doctors must respect the refusal of treatment by a competent patient, and without valid consent, any medical intervention could amount to assault or battery.

Legal Maxim:
• Volenti non fit injuria: No injury is done to one who consents. This legal maxim underpins the principle that medical treatment cannot be forced upon a person who does not consent, as such actions would violate their autonomy.

Summary:
You have the absolute legal right to refuse any medical procedure in the UK as long as you have capacity and are making an informed decision. This is protected under the common law principle of informed consent, the Human Rights Act, and various statutory regulations such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Medical professionals must respect this right, or they risk committing a tort of
battery or breaching other legal obligations. Despite my rights of refusal, you still hold an obligation to provide safe ‘wholesome’ drinking water in accordance with the Water Supply(Water Quality) Regulations 2016, part 3, section 4.

4. Please provide all relevant data that is relied upon to class drinking water, that claims medical purposes as a food source.

5. Provide all relevant date, proving Hexafluorosilicic Acid as beneficial despite its clear links to severe health conditions and some of its contaminants being known as life threatening.

6. Please provide your authority you rely upon to breach patients rights of refusal, by commandeering a vital source of life to do so.

7. Please provide the medical supervision provided to yourself, when making the decision to continue to medicate the public to allegedly prevent tooth decay.

Yours faithfully,

Shaun Robert Robertson