Stephen Peckham's written submission to the Southern Central SHA.
Extract
7.8 In England it is now possible to obtain good prevalence data for hypothyroidism in the community. Initial analysis of hypothyroidism prevalence rates by PCT area, adjusted for age, has demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with water fluoridation. This is a preliminary analysis and was undertaken by the Environmental Epidemiology Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Further data is being sought on water fluoride exposure to develop a more sensitive analysis but based on the preliminary analysis, there is sufficient evidence to hypothesise a link between water fluoridation and hypothyroidism prevalence in England and a paper is currently in preparation
Paul Connett's written submission to the Southern Central SHA.
Extract
It has taken me four solid days to prepare this submission. I do not have any illusions about the SHA paying serious attention to this work, because it is clear that the SHA made up its collective mind to fluoridate Southampton months ago. The brochure the SHA provided to the public on this matter revealed this most clearly. This brochure was as far from a balanced presentation on this controversial issue as it could possibly get. This same applies to the material (both the physical displays and the oral information) presented in the Open House meetings. Thus while in other ways the SHA has tried to give the appearance of impartiality, particularly the three “Question Time” type meetings held at the Football Stadium (which was conducted in a scrupulously fair fashion by the chair) in which I participated, all of this was part of a massive PR exercise to achieve a pre-ordained end: namely to fluoridate Southampton, regardless of scientific input or public opposition. On the matter of the ”Question Time” meetings, I thought it was also interesting to note that we were told several times that the videotapes would be used to record the questions asked by the audience, but at no time were we told that the panel’s answers would be considered in their deliberations. The final straw for me was seeing a postcard distributed at taxpayers’ expense calling for people to respond to this proposal but only providing a single box for a “yes” vote. No box was provided for a “no” vote!
Now if this had all been part of an exercise by the British Fluoridation Society then perhaps one would have expected such blatant partisanship, however since this exercise is being funded by the British taxpayer I believe that it is inexcusable.
Hampshire County Council Scrutiny Panel Report in full
Extract
j. Until such time as the further work outlined above has taken place the County Council does not support any proposal for adding fluoride to the water of people living and working in Hampshire.