A Violation of Medical Ethics and Human Rights
An article by D.W. Cross and R.J. Carton (2003)
Published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, January-March 2003, vol. 9 (1), pp.24-9
A Violation of Medical Ethics and Human Rights
D.W. Cross and R.J. Carton
Published in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
vol. 9 (1), pp. 24-9
The paragraph dealing with the non-specificity of fluoride is on page 27, Column 2:
"The subject must have been informed by health care professionals about all relevant facts, including the risks, which must include a full assessment of the risks related to the individual characteristics of each patient, such as age or the existence of other disease. Clearly, in the case of the fluoridation of the public water supply no such actions have been taken or are planned, so no informed consent is possible. Nor has the state the power to take upon itself the right to make such a decision on behalf of the individual."
Analysis
The state can only get away with this because it claims that Water Fluoridation is not a medicinal intervention. It can be nothing else and we can fall back on p.19 of BSEN 12175:2022 where the function is clearly stated that "hexafluorosilicic acid is used for the fluoridation of drinking water to increase the resistance of consumers to dental decay".
Prophylactic > Preventative > Medicine
It's one thing to know this and another to force the State to acknowledge this fact. That's where legal action is required: once a judge has been asked to test the law and once the judge has accepted that fluoridated water is a medicine and one for which no individual consent has ever been given, Water Fluoridation should cease.
A law has to be tested in Court before it is fully ratified.
The State can only get away with this because the law has not been tested in a court of law in England. However, it was tested in a Court of Law in Scotland in 1982/3. The judge (Judge Lord Jauncey) ruled that fluoride, in whatever form it was to be administered by the Respondent, was a medicine.
That was Scotland and all would have been well but for the intransigence of Margaret Thatcher and Kenneth Clark. Instead of heeding the Judge's ruling, they rushed to legalise Water Fluoridation in 1985, thus tying us into the practice. It would have taken some brave and rich souls to prosecute the Government once the practice was legalised.
No brave and rich souls have appeared and so, it is today, that the Government thinks that it is invincible and that they can do with us as they wish.
