UK - Daily Echo - Concerns 'have been dismissed'
Concerns 'have been dismissed'
THE failure to provide proper, or indeed any, answers to important questions about fluoridation, as encountered by Mrs Kinchington (Daily Echo, November 1), has been a characteristic of the whole scandalous process, in which the concerns of the public have been treated with contemptuous dismissal.
The very absence of replies has in turn prompted other questions, not least because it emerges that much of the needed research has never even been done, or when done, never examined.
In my opinion information from Dr Williams published in the Daily Echo on August 20 proved conclusively that the SHA is not fit to give direction on fluoridation, and that fact alone should have brought about official investigation.
The nature of the consultation was early recognised by public and MPs alike and yet, when we ask why matters were allowed to proceed, we get no reply. The same applies when we ask why parliament considers our water to be a fit vehicle for random medication. No one admits to knowing who expects to benefit financially from having fluoride forced upon us, yet an answer to that point would very likely give us a clue as to where the real influence lies. G PAYNE, Woolston, Southampton
THE failure to provide proper, or indeed any, answers to important questions about fluoridation, as encountered by Mrs Kinchington (Daily Echo, November 1), has been a characteristic of the whole scandalous process, in which the concerns of the public have been treated with contemptuous dismissal.
The very absence of replies has in turn prompted other questions, not least because it emerges that much of the needed research has never even been done, or when done, never examined.
In my opinion information from Dr Williams published in the Daily Echo on August 20 proved conclusively that the SHA is not fit to give direction on fluoridation, and that fact alone should have brought about official investigation.
The nature of the consultation was early recognised by public and MPs alike and yet, when we ask why matters were allowed to proceed, we get no reply. The same applies when we ask why parliament considers our water to be a fit vehicle for random medication. No one admits to knowing who expects to benefit financially from having fluoride forced upon us, yet an answer to that point would very likely give us a clue as to where the real influence lies. G PAYNE, Woolston, Southampton
posted by Bill at
9:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home