UK - Minister doesn't care about ethics
Minister doesn't care about ethics
By Jenny Johnson
SO former health minister Andy Burnham now thinks the views of local people on fluoridation should be respected.
Coming from the man who was instrumental in changing the law to deny people the right to choose, what could be more politically cynical and opportunistic? But then, of course, Mr Burnham was vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society (a position he was forced to resign prior to his promotion, after failing to mention this conflict of interests).
Is this really a man of the people, or a ruthless climber of the greasy pole, willing to ignore medical ethics and human and democratic rights?
Mr Burnham wants to lead New Labour. When a politician can turn a blind eye to scientific facts that prove health risks, what else might he be capable of?
This is someone whose pet policy is state-enforced, non-consensual mass medication. It speaks for itself. It is a matter of extreme concern that even now, Burnham is saying fluoridation is safe and beneficial. This is factually untrue and he should retract the claim. [HL1964] Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" - Hansard, April 20, 1999: WA 158,
Shock findings
In 2000, the findings of the York Review sent Shockwaves through New Labour. Fluoridation was NOT proved safe. Its unconfirmed benefits had to be weighed against potentially far more serious harms. The Review also stated that fluoridation failed in its core purpose of dental equality between rich and poor.
New Labour propaganda hurtled into overdrive, forcing Professor Sheldon, chairman of the Review, to publicly denounce the lies and shocking misinformation that was being giving out to the public.
Mr Burnham's sycophantic boast that he is a man of the people is particularly insulting to the thousands in Southampton threatened by his legislation. Fluoridation is an industrial policy, not a health measure.
By Jenny Johnson
SO former health minister Andy Burnham now thinks the views of local people on fluoridation should be respected.
Coming from the man who was instrumental in changing the law to deny people the right to choose, what could be more politically cynical and opportunistic? But then, of course, Mr Burnham was vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society (a position he was forced to resign prior to his promotion, after failing to mention this conflict of interests).
Is this really a man of the people, or a ruthless climber of the greasy pole, willing to ignore medical ethics and human and democratic rights?
Mr Burnham wants to lead New Labour. When a politician can turn a blind eye to scientific facts that prove health risks, what else might he be capable of?
This is someone whose pet policy is state-enforced, non-consensual mass medication. It speaks for itself. It is a matter of extreme concern that even now, Burnham is saying fluoridation is safe and beneficial. This is factually untrue and he should retract the claim. [HL1964] Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" - Hansard, April 20, 1999: WA 158,
Shock findings
In 2000, the findings of the York Review sent Shockwaves through New Labour. Fluoridation was NOT proved safe. Its unconfirmed benefits had to be weighed against potentially far more serious harms. The Review also stated that fluoridation failed in its core purpose of dental equality between rich and poor.
New Labour propaganda hurtled into overdrive, forcing Professor Sheldon, chairman of the Review, to publicly denounce the lies and shocking misinformation that was being giving out to the public.
Mr Burnham's sycophantic boast that he is a man of the people is particularly insulting to the thousands in Southampton threatened by his legislation. Fluoridation is an industrial policy, not a health measure.
posted by Bill at
9:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home