|
Press Release 006
#006
3rd December 2000. Embargoed until 00.01 am 4th December
2000
BIRMINGHAM HEALTH MINISTER IN ATTEMPT TO AVOID SLEAZE
PROBE. LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH ALSO IMPLICATED.
- GISELA STUART SHOWS CONTEMPT FOR SUFFERERS OF FLUORIDE-RELATED
CONDITIONS: DISGRACEFUL TACTICS FROM THE HEALTH MINISTER.
- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EMPLOYED TO STONEWALL: CRITICAL QUESTIONS NOT
ANSWERED.
- MORI AND BIRMINGHAM HEALTH AUTHORITY IN 'SECRETIVE' AND PROPAGANDIST
OPINION POLL SCANDAL.
BACKGROUND:
On the 19th October, 2000, an e-mail was sent to Gisela Stuart, MP & Health
Minister. The general theme of this e-mail was to arrange a meeting to
discuss the legalised abuse of children who are exposed to toxic fluoride
waste products, as well as the tactics used to garner public support for
water fluoridation.
A number of pertinent questions and observations were asked or made. But
rather than address the issues at stake, Ms Stuart has employed a policy of
ignorance, and contempt, and has refused to communicate.
The main issues raised for question were as follows;-
- Earlier this year, the Birmingham Health Authority sponsored a MORI
poll on water fluoridation. Six questions were asked in this poll but
only three are in the public domain. It has been seen in the past that
opinion poll questions are usually designed to 'persuade' the respondent
into giving their support for fluoridation. Considering that the
Birmingham Health Authority's representative, Dr John Langford, has
refused to provide the remaining three 'secret' questions, we should
question the morality and integrity of an opinion poll which is not open
and fair.
In fact, there is much to suspect about this opinion poll inasmuch that
the sponsors are well-known pro-fluoridation propagandists and that the
MORI web-site has carried one-sided propagandist material on behalf of the
Authority and compiled by the "West Midlands Regional Dental Health
Promotion Group" (which is made up in part of members of some Health
Authorities, including Dr Langford).
Birmingham Health Authority and MORI are therefore under suspicion, until
proven otherwise, of conducting an opinion poll to achieve a specific
result, and quite possibly a result that they could not achieve in an
environment of accountability to the general public.
DoH RESPONSE: They don't want to get involved!
- The second serious issue involves the status of another Health
Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Health. The information that had previously
been received from the Department of Health (DoH) indicated that Lord Hunt
was still a member of the pro-fluoridation and propagandist outfit, the
British Fluoridation Society.
The reply from the DoH was as follows;-
" ... I can confirm you are mistaken in regard to your
comments about Lord Hunt's involvement with the British Fluoridation
Society. The minister is not a current member, nor has he ever been a
personal member. His involvement has only ever been as a corporate
member, which was during his previous involvement with the NHS
Confederation (formerly the National Association of Health Authorities
and Trusts)."
End of DoH statement.
However ...
Lord Hunt's own words (from Hansard, 7-40 pm, 16 Dec 1998: Column 1421);-
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: " ... Certainly, in my 25 years in
the health service before coming to your Lordships' House, fluoridation
often played a part in my working life, first as a CHC Secretary in the
1970s; secondly, holding public meetings to discuss the issue
as a member of the British Fluoridation Society Council and, thirdly, as
director of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts where
many of our health authority members have been wrestling with those issues
for well over 20 years."
CONCLUSIONS:
- Gisela Stuart has displayed an absence of accountability. Her
attitude will help bad and fraudulent science, and propaganda, to dictate
future policy on fluoridation. As a consequence, the Government is likely
to maintain a policy of fluoride chemical child abuse.
- Lord Hunt's fondness for one-sided pro-fluoridation propaganda is well
established. The fact that someone who is so heavily biased towards one
viewpoint AND is an established 'friend' of the British Fluoridation
Society is not acceptable. Ministers should be free of any influence and
yet Lord Hunt's cosy relationship with pro-fluoridation propagandists and
his compliant nature makes him totally unsuitable for the position he
holds.
- There is an obvious and blatant conspiracy of like-minded and
influential individuals in both of the Houses who will do their upmost to
continue to promote lies and half-truths about the so-called 'benefits' of
fluoridation.
Conflict of interest? See Hansard entries (below)
7 Jul 2000 : Column: 335W
Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he
will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the British
Fluoridation Society; and what contributions were made to the Society by the
Government in each year since 1975-76. [129658]
Yvette Cooper: The main role the Department funds the
British Fluoridation Society to fulfill, is to collect and maintain evidence
on the effects of fluoridation. Our support for the British Fluoridation
Society since 1975-76 has been:
Year and Amount:
| 1975-76 |
£4,500 |
1984-85 |
£15,000 |
1993-94 |
£62,247 |
| 1976-77 |
£5,500 |
1985-86 |
£30,000 |
1994-95 |
£63,000 |
| 1977-78 |
£5,500 |
1986-87 |
£20,000 |
1995-96 |
£74,000 |
| 1978-79 |
£5,500 |
1987-88 |
£20,000 |
1996-97 |
£117,609 |
| 1979-80 |
£5,500 |
1988-89 |
£30,000 |
1997-98 |
£90,000 |
| 1980-81 |
£11,000 |
1989-90 |
£31,000 |
1998-99 |
£76,000 |
| 1981-82 |
£14,000 |
1990-91 |
£45,784 |
1999-00 |
£78,000 |
| 1982-83 |
£15,000 |
1991-92 |
£51,491 |
- |
- |
| 1983-84 |
£15,000 |
1992-93 |
£56,000 |
- |
- |
A total of: £941,631 ...... equals a lot of 'corporate
hospitality'
25 Jul 2000 : Column: 502W
Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health,
pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2000, Official Report, column 335W,
regarding fluoridation, what conditions apply to the moneys given by his
Department to the British Fluoridation Society. [131331]
Yvette Cooper [holding answer 20 July 2000]: Since 1975
successive Governments have funded the British Fluoridation Society to help
promote and implement their policies on oral health by providing evidence
based advice to all interested parties. The Society is required to maintain
accounts which show the use to which funds have been put for inspection by
the Department's auditors.
REMINDER: fluoride.org.uk,
like many other anti-fluoridation organisations, is NOT funded by any
Government or industry with (or without) vested interests.
BUT WITH NEARLY £1 MILLION TO EXPLOIT WE COULD DO A LOT MORE!
|