Get the 16,000 people that say no to brush there kids teeth then.

so much for 'texting' to be the way of the future. Such as small number using it for this type of thing, councils/newspapers etc shouldn't bother spending money on that sort of thing

Anon wrote:
so much for 'texting' to be the way of the future. Such as small number using it for this type of thing, councils/newspapers etc shouldn't bother spending money on that sort of thing

I don't think that's quite the issue here...

I would like to see this "comprehensive"poll the SHA ran. I would like to see the way the questions are worded, the rejection rate and the evidence supplied with it, as everything I've read so far from the NHS is highly biased.

Captain Colgate wrote:
Get the 16,000 people that say no to brush there kids teeth then.

So many people seem to have children without actually feeling the weight of responsibility for them. Of course parents should supervise their childrens' teeth brushing. We should not fill in for those people who cannot be bothered. This sends the message that lying around on your backside wins rewards. A bit like giving benefits to the majority of claimants who have never contributed national insurance or tax payments in their lives. If people can't be bothered to brush their teeth because they need their 200 fags a week more, who am I to intervene. Let their teeth rot!!

flouride is toxic
many countries have banned it because they believe it to be harmful.
Mass medication is wrong and it should be up to the indvidual.
i have 3 kids aged 12,9,7 and they all have perfectly healthy teeth. why should they have a toxic added to thier water.

Shouldn't the PCT be promoting public health by advocating healthy living in these target areas? If you have a poor diet and drink sugary drinks no amount of fluoride is going to help. Have the PCT given up or failed on health promotion?

So what happens to the majority of kids who DO brush their teeth properly, will they suffer from fluoride overdose ?

i see small children in buggies drinking coke or squash so strong its hard to believe that there is any water in it - these children will invariably have bad teeth and no matter what you put in the water will no affect that - as they do not drink water in the first place

"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 communize 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.

Cole Gates – The PCT is actively promoting oral health. However, if a parent can’t be bothered to literally cross the road to a free dental health clinic for her child (which she admits has holes in its teeth and whose diet she says consists of chocolate muffins and Coke) there is not a lot anyone can do. You can take a horse to water – or even a neglected child – but you can’t make them drink!

SAINT BEAN wrote:
"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 communize 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.

Yes, nail on head. Today flouride, next stop microchipping. We know their plan, don't jump on the first stepping stone - FIGHT FLOURIDATION WITH EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT.

John wrote:

Captain Colgate wrote:
Get the 16,000 people that say no to brush there kids teeth then.

So many people seem to have children without actually feeling the weight of responsibility for them. Of course parents should supervise their childrens' teeth brushing. We should not fill in for those people who cannot be bothered. This sends the message that lying around on your backside wins rewards. A bit like giving benefits to the majority of claimants who have never contributed national insurance or tax payments in their lives. If people can't be bothered to brush their teeth because they need their 200 fags a week more, who am I to intervene. Let their teeth rot!!

What has brushing your teeth got to do with smoking 200 fags a week,

As John eloquently said, if you make your bed, you gotta lie in it, don't enforce a cure for your ills on me thank you very much. This is bad, bad, news if it goes any further. As posters have indicated, there is almost definately a sinister subplot to putting chemicals in our drinking water - I feel anyone suggested otherwise has a vested interest in its distrubtion.

This is not about the teeth of the hygenically challenge lower class. Why are the people in charge claiming they care about a few fillings - as if!!

Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

how many times are the Echo going to run this story? Practically everyday we have something on this. It's clear the majority don't want it, let it lie until the consultation.

Cue massive posts from yanks

read the guardian, article on links with cancer in boys, plus the fluoride added is not the same as that naturally occuring in some regions of the uk

"Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face."

- General Jack D Ripper

Christoff wrote:
how many times are the Echo going to run this story? Practically everyday we have something on this. It\'s clear the majority don\'t want it, let it lie until the consultation. Cue massive posts from yanks

Think about it - they've been running a poll for a week or so (during which they'd want people to know about it and take part), and quite understandably want to publish the results.

PCT Worker wrote:
Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

If it is already present, why is there is still bad teeth? What is the level you want to stop at if we are still getting case of bad teeth - there is no magic figure and like has been said time and time again - people with bad teeth DONT EVEN DRINK THE WATER WE ARE PUTTING THIS UNNECESSARY CHEMICAL IN!!

THERE IS A REASON IT SAYS 'DON'T SWALLOW' ON YOUR TOOTH PASTE.

hmm wrote:

Christoff wrote: how many times are the Echo going to run this story? Practically everyday we have something on this. It\'s clear the majority don\'t want it, let it lie until the consultation. Cue massive posts from yanks

Think about it - they've been running a poll for a week or so (during which they'd want people to know about it and take part), and quite understandably want to publish the results.

Grrrrr. How dare you apply logic. I am having a whinge

Steph Martins wrote:

PCT Worker wrote: Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

If it is already present, why is there is still bad teeth? What is the level you want to stop at if we are still getting case of bad teeth - there is no magic figure and like has been said time and time again - people with bad teeth DONT EVEN DRINK THE WATER WE ARE PUTTING THIS UNNECESSARY CHEMICAL IN!! THERE IS A REASON IT SAYS 'DON'T SWALLOW' ON YOUR TOOTH PASTE.

That would be because of the other chemicals not flouride.

Steph Martins wrote:

PCT Worker wrote:

Steph Martins wrote:

PCT Worker wrote: Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

If it is already present, why is there is still bad teeth? What is the level you want to stop at if we are still getting case of bad teeth - there is no magic figure and like has been said time and time again - people with bad teeth DONT EVEN DRINK THE WATER WE ARE PUTTING THIS UNNECESSARY CHEMICAL IN!! THERE IS A REASON IT SAYS 'DON'T SWALLOW' ON YOUR TOOTH PASTE.

That would be because of the other chemicals not flouride.

Ummm, from this link: www.freearticlesarch ive .com/article/What_s_ In_Your _Toothpaste/10618/0/

One of the main ingredients of toothpaste is fluoride. However, some toothpastes contain huge amounts of this chemical. Excessive fluoride inside our system can cause several problems like chronic fatigue, arthritis, rheumatism, constipation, and maybe cancer. According to the World Health Organization and the US Environmental Protection Agency, fluoride is considered to be an unclassifiable carcinogen .

Someone better qualified than you knows different.

Im a scientific doctor of flouride research, so i doubt it.

I would like to see more NHS dentists. I can't afford the private clinic's bills.

you mean a medical researcher?

you seem to spell fluoride wrong a lot

Can people stop having children if they cant be bothered to look after their welfare!!

Bad parents - you are consistantly the problem. It's about time there was some sort of background check and exam before having babies. It seems that so much resource is now spent propping up cr@p parents...

Buck your ideas up!

So what happens if we find that the water company has put too much fluoride in the water and the population of the city starts developing medical complaints because of this?

I've heard alarming things about excessive fluoride and don't want it in my drinking water.

The last time i checked, we were living in a free society where we have the right to choose...

Thank-you - but I choose to not have the NHS/Water Companies/Grease Monkeys to tamper with my drinking water.

I wonder if this is a breach of my human rights?!? - Next stop: European Court!!

P.S. - There is nothing wrong with my teeth because I brush them twice a day, use mouth wash and floss. I don't want my teeth damaged by fluoridosis! I a segment of society can't be afford to look after their teeth, then the NHS should give them Fluoride supplement tablets rather than mass-medicate the population.

Has anyone done a study to find out the cancer/mortality rates of areas with Fluoride already being added to the water???

I'm not convinced!

Marge wrote:
you mean a medical researcher? you seem to spell fluoride wrong a lot

Hahaha, you beat me to it!

There are not enough scientific doctors about, in my opinion. Thank god we've got PCT Worker.

If the PCT has identified 11 target neighbourhoods, why in gods name don't they employ 2-3 dental health workers to work in these areas??? It would cost far less and be more effective.
It's probably because someone somewhere stands to make a huge profit from overloading their toxic waste - large backhanders all round me thinks. That has to be the only logical explaination.

New research of bone cancer figures has shown a 40% elevated rate in Republic of Ireland (fluoridated) compared to Northern Ireland (unfluoridated).
The bone cancer in question called osteosarcoma is one of the most prevalent cancers in young males, aged 9-20. There are both animal and human studies linking osteosarcoma and water fluoridation/fluorid
e.
Answer that Dr Mortimore!! or are you scared to face the public in an open debate?
as for you so called previous 'consultation'. We know full well how the pro-fluoride people dupe the public with misleadaing questions designed to get the answers you want. Tell people the TRUTH. That you are playing dice with our health as you CAN NOT prove Fluoride is safe.

"Im a scientific doctor of flouride research, so i doubt it".

LOL. "a scientific doctor of flou-ride research".
Now I know the lunatics really HAVE taken over the asylum.

All sounds like an Illuminati plot to me.

There's a BIG difference between fluorine and fluoride (note spelling).

Fluorine is one of nature's natural compound minerals and is beneficial to humans as a trace element.

Fluoride, is quite different, it's an extremely toxic and poisonous man-made waste product from phosphate-fertilizer production.

It is fluoride that is added to water supplies to supposedly curb tooth decay, though facts supporting this are dubious and in any case it ignores the harmful side-effects of fluoride on general health. Fluoride is added to tap water, toothpaste, bottled drinks, and a whole host of processed foods and personal products that are consummed by an unknowing public. Fluoride bio-accumulates in the human body (especially the glands) and over the years and decades, initiates a long list of severe illnesses and degenerative conditions.

The main driver for the use of fluoride in water suppliers is the USA where it is erroneously promoted by the powerful business lobby on the pretext of aiding against tooth decay, whereas the primary purpose is the need to find a commercial market for what would otherwise leave industry with large fluoride surpluses.

Something somewhat comparable has occurred when the massive surplus of American subsidised corn crops were fed into ethanol production for greener petrol. This use resolved one problem, but created much more serious repercussions with world food prices due to land use and is now being hotly debated.

Gosh - this is a lively debate! Can I clarify four important points? (1.) Reverse osmosis (R/O)filtration units cost about £200 each and can be installed by the layman. The filters and membrane often last a lot longer than the manufacturer's recommended 6 months and it is possible to check the total dissolved solids in tap water using a handy little electronic gauge (£25) so that the filters and membrane do not need to be changed quite so often. R/O units use about 5 litres of water for back-flushing the membrane for every 1 litre filtered. If people have a water meter, the installation of an R/O unit is not going to be economical. So - important point (1) - DO NOT CONVERT TO A WATER METER WHILE THE FLUORIDE DEBATE CONTINUES. And then deduct the cost of the R/O unit and filters and membranes from your water charges. You would not be alone in doing this - it's being done already by very many people throughout the fluoridated areas of England.

(2) Stuart Jebbitt - your Irish statistics are interesting. Please post up the reference for the Irish osteosarcoma statistics. BTW Elise Bassin in the USA found that teenage boys from fluoridated areas were more likely to have osteosarcoma than non-fluoridated boys.

(3). Stuart Jebbitt again: yes, you are right to suspect someone making a large profit out of selling the toxic waste product to the NHS. Or rather, someone is making not so great a loss. If the fluorosilicate is advertised in Scandinavia as a toxic waste product, the manufacturers of phosphate fertilisers would have to treat it and then pay lots of dosh to send it to hazardous landfill. So, it is cleverly reclassified as a valuable co-product and sold to the Irish and UK NHS who give it to the water companies for adding to the tap water. This is what is termed "massaging environmental legislation" or "visualising creative solutions".

(4) It doesn't look as though some deprived areas in Southampton will be fluoridated due to the quirkiness of the water supply infrastructure. So these communities will be disadvantaged (I don't think). If the SHA can't fluoridate all the deserving areas, it makes the entire exercise pointless. A solution would be to provide supermarkets in these areas with fluoridated salt and withdraw iodised salt - that way, those denied the benefits of fluoridated water will enjoy the benefits of poor health at the same time as their more fortunate fluoridated neighbours who can enjoy the benefits of fluoridated water. Better still, provide fluoridated bottled water and withdraw Caledonian and Cambrian bottled water from supermarkets. Even better still, provide compulsory fluoridated salt and ban bottled water altogether. Job done!

Sorry - it's me again. Wilson - fluorine - the element - is definitely not an essential trace mineral. Look at Wikipedia: "In its elementally isolated (pure) form, fluorine is a poisonous, pale, yellowish brown gas, with chemical formula F2. Like other halogens, molecular fluorine is highly dangerous; it causes severe chemical burns on contact with skin." I doubt if you would ever find a steady supply of fluorine since it does not occur on its own in nature. Do you mean calcium fluoride perhaps? But even this is injurious to health - look at the thousands of Indians suffering from osteofluorosis because of the calcium fluoride in their water supply which has been leached out of rocks upstream.

Fluoridation is being foisted on the Isle of Man as well as Southampton. The letter below proves not all of the medical profession go along with those who are hell bent in imposing fluoride on us.

FROM: DR ADAM STANDRING, Nobles Hospital, Douglas.

AS a practising member of the Island's medical profession I feel obliged to comment on what I see as some of the misleading information being provided by the Department of Health and Social Security to the public in regard of the proposal to fluoridate the Island's public water supply.
1, in their leaflet, Water Fluoridation – information for Isle of Man residents, the DHSS seemingly implied that there is a problem with dental decay caused by a deficiency of fluoride in our tap water. This is plainly untrue. There has been a decline in our dental health since a 1993 survey which showed it to be acceptable. There appears to be no mention of the actual causes of increased dental decay, which are dietary and behavioural.
2, the implication is that we are lacking an essential mineral is also untrue. If fluoride were an essential mineral for dental health then a deficiency would eventually lead to our teeth crumbling. There is no such medical syndrome.
Fluoride is a medical treatment to strengthen tooth enamel. It is not like iodine, which is added to our bread flour to correct a natural deficiency, nor like chlorine which is added to water to kill pathogens and not to treat the person.
3, I commit an assault if I administer a medication without my patient's consent.
This is taught to all doctors at medical school, including our public health doctors. When I advise or prescribe medicines I am ethically obliged to explain why I am doing so and what the potential drawbacks or side effects of the treatment might be. My patient has the right to determine for themselves if they want to take this medicine. Enforced fluoridation is against this principle.
4, the contentious leaflet cites professional support for fluoridation from the Isle of Man Medical Society. This society only represents the opinions of its members and not those of the Island's medical profession.
5, of the dubiously impartial phone poll which followed, how can its respondents not be influenced by this inaccurate leaflet?
People might end up losing faith in members of the medical profession if our public medical officials fail to conduct themselves with the same levels of frankness and honesty as we hope for in our private consultations at our GP's surgeries or at hospital clinics

Ingested fluoride has no current science to show benefit(just topical) but it does triple dental fluorosis(discolored porous brittle enamel).It is a cumulative toxin like lead and arsenic except you put 1000ppb in the water versus goal of ZERO for lead and arsenic. Toothpaste has some benefit but most children swallow so much that the benefit is offset by enamel damage. The ADA claims most of the worst damage is from toothpaste not being supervised by parents with kids. It has always been about good nutrition if you want to see westonaprice.org as he studies groups around the world before they ate civilazation took away natural foods. processed foods had far less minerals and healthy fats . They went from no cavities with no dentists to lots of rot in one generation. Jim Schultz

Nice website, not.

I think the score on evidence for Vs against is still crushingly against adding this chemical for its alledged small improvement in a couple of people's dental situation.

FIGHT FLUORIDATION, ITS NOT NEEDED, its NOT WANTED AND IT WILL NOT BE FORCED UPON US

The issue of product use is one of deception by the health agencies. In Florida the damage caused to cattle and crops caused the EPA to require smoke stack scrubbers to capture toxic waste. They then called it product is disposed of directly into drinking water. The FDA has never approved or even studied any ingested fluoride product. The thousands of claimed studies include not one single one on this very different blend of toxic chemical. This product is H2SiF6 with about 20 other contaminates many radioactive. Phosphate contains uranium at levels money can be made with recovery units. They closed down the recovery units in Florida by 1998(except one). This is the extra bonus not often mentioned as most would not agree to drinking cumulative radioactive waste. The AWWA establishes the standards and the NSF does the testing. The NSF refuses to disclose the toxic contaminates to the public or even the state health departments. The American Water Works Association just received notice to not destroy data to be used in lawsuits on kidney damage. Because they claim to be the experts on safe water they also have notice they may be named in lawsuits of kidney harm. No better reality check then lawsuits for people that injure others. The National Kidney Foundation has now withdrawn its support of fluoridation and states kidney patients should be alerted of risk. They caution most with chronic kidney damage do not know it yet and no beverages and foods disclose fluoride content so almost an impossible task. No ingested benefit means this is a really stupid policy. Not one test ever on this toxic waste product. The product varies every day in content as the rock content varies so it is almost impossible to certify a unknown blend of toxins. So they did not even try. They just lied and claimed it is all the same. The LD 50 toxicity of H2SiF6 is 34 times more toxic then natural Calcium fluoride which is never used in fluoridation. This site has lots of good science from the no fluoride people and no science from supporters. Go figure. Its all 60 year old theory and old faked studies. They lie then hide and a real debate is very rare. Liars are not stupid in this case and they have huge cash resourses a lots of ignorant professionals to do their biding .. Jim Schultz

On the bone cancer risk Osteosarcoma--New Jersey state health dept did two studies in the early 90's and discover huge increases of up to 7 timtes with the HFSA radioactive product. It took their Congressman John Kelly 2 years and a lawsuit before the FDA finally admitted they have never reviewed or approved any ingested fluoride product. It is grandfathered in as effective rat poison and insecticide prior to 1938. In 1978 the FDA lost 3 lawsuits and admitted no data to show fluorides a nutrient or probable nutrient. In 2006 the FDA admitted bottled fluoride water can make no claims of benefit for infants(12 months and under). The CDC and ADA also cautioned to not use fluoridated water for infant formula ,or drinking or cereals orjuices and so on to reduce dental fluorosis. Ireland had a 9-0 vote to warn against in 2000 but reversed the vote when advised it could put all fluoridation at risk to admit damage to infants. Lies trump truth in government. How stupid do they think citizens are? Without information there is no informed consent. This is not about teeth that is just the tip of the toxic iceberg. It is about cumulative toxicity in seniors that is hidden from us all. Arrogance and stupidity are the foundation of poor government. One of our Publich health officials in Florida Michael Easley DDS stated "nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country." This is the worst kind of home grown terriorist and he is paid the big bucks to insult and injure. Maybe he has helped your people on a consult. Jim Schultz

Mr. Parrott Quack watch is a industry front to support everything non science and Mr Douglass was proven a fool and liar on the fluoridation issue when he sued, went to court and could not even produce one single study of the 200 plus he claimed he had that proved fluoridation effective. He had sued for 200,000 plus for his honor which seems to be worth less then ZERO. A total rubbish site. All sites are not equal--get some standards-think more- question more. The science papers are decent at the government agencies they just refuse to follow the science and the policy is devoid of science often. Power and cash buy policy as lobby write the regulations to benefit themselves. Jim Schultz

Their idea of 'Consultancy' will be to ring a few random residents (probably over August),
and ask them 3 leading questions that are designed to make them say yes.

1. Are you aware that there is a dental health problem in Southampton?
2. Did you know that Fluoride Protects teeth?
3. Would you mind if we topped up the fluoride levels in Southampton?

No opposing argument, No actual facts, No chance to go away and consider.

This is exactly what they've done elsewhere, so we've no reason to believe it won't be the method they use here.

We need to demand a real, open, public debate and bang the drums very loudly!!!

They are frightened of an open public debate because they know they can't possibly win it.
The data is clear.
The safety of Fluoride is far from proven. Far more scientific work is needed.
Who in Southampton would really want to take that risk?
There is every chance that should this be pushed through, some poor soul will pay with his life.
And that could be your or my child.
Hundreds more will have their teeth ruined by dental Fluorosis and be left with a massive bill to put it right.
They won't be paying that bill, we will.
Remember, It will cost you about £200 a tooth to fix privately.

David (ref your 4:44pm letter)

Wikipedia is not the best pathway to knowledge, but click within that page and you'll discover some more intelligent coverage. Anyway, fluorine in nature comes in compound form and of course if you remove many elements from their natural state, all manner of adverse outcomes can result. Man is always trying to copy nature, but usually comes out an inferior 2nd.

For instance, the majority of heavily advertised Vitamin supplements are manufactured in a lab environment and although they have the same formula make-up as with natural ingredients, the human body doesn't recognise them and therefore tend to pass ineffectively through the system. To avoid this, the consumer should write to the vitamin supplier and request confirmation that the vitamins are produced only from natural products. Suppliers of a substandard product will not give you a straight answer, but issue some official-type reply that their vitamins meet the highest industry standard required by law.

p.s. I would add that I didn't state that fluorine was essential for humans, only that it can be beneficial as a trace element.

Quote : by: Wilson, Soton on 5:58pm today
David (ref your 4:44pm letter) p.s. I would add that I didn't state that fluorine was essential for humans, only that it can be beneficial as a trace element.

Mmm - I've turned to Kenneth Hutton's "Chemistry - the Conquest of Materials" (1957). Always a good read! p.40: "And together, again (in Group 7) are fluorine, chlorine and bromine - the first two of these being poisonous gases and all of them highly reactive chemically"

All I'm saying is that the pro-fluoridationists tell us that fluoride is a very plentiful substance and that it's natural and that therefore it does us good. Arsenic is natural as well but unless you have a death wish, I wouldn't wish to regard it as being a beneficial trace element.

The only way in which fluoride could once have been regarded as being beneficial "in the short term" is in a hot bath prescribed by doctors to dampen down a hyperactive thyroid gland (no longer used as is the way with most once- fashionable medical interventions).

I would never willingly ingest fluoride or fluorine since both are poisonous. It really is important not to regard fluoride or fluorine as being something which the human body needs or which is beneficial otherwise the pro-fluoridationists have won a vital part of their argument.

Think I'll give it a rest for today. Over and out.

David

I believe we are in agreement, although you appear fixated with viewing fluorine out of its natural state.

The pro-fluoride lobby has used a study in Orange Country, Calif where higher natural traces of fluorine in the water supply appeared to show reduced tooth decay, a possible example of where trace Fluorine was beneficial.

However, as I summarised in my 4:26pm letter, there's a BIG difference between natural trace fluorine and large scale manufactured fluoride that would be the substance added to water supplies. The industry-backed Pro-group assumes rightly that the public doesn't know the difference and politicians are too wary of losing generous party funds donations.

The local PCT and South Central SHA had better watch out. If they force this on us, they'll be in for trouble! People really aren't idiots you know. We can find out the facts for ourselves - and most of us have done so.
Tell the SHA we don't want our money wasted on an illegal consultation. We don't want it wasted on illegal medication. And we don't want the Chairman, the CEO and the other members of the Board getting paid for trying to poison us. Resign the lot of you - or be pushed out by a lot of well informed, very angry people.