This chart compares apathy towards cancelling Brexit, as expressed by the percentage in each constituency who didn't sign the petition to revoke Article 50 (stay in the EU) with their average fluoridatedness.
Nothing can be determined about individual fluoridatedness. Fluorothink does not like dealing with individuals. More about fluorothink as we go on.
Similarly nothing can be elucidated from the petition about Brexitiness at the single-organism level. HoC petitioners are of course anonymous to the world looking in.
But we can look at both on a constituency basis, with a few tweaks.
Unlike the June 23 2016 EU referendum, the Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU petition enjoyed the benefits of a ripened public awareness of the issues at stake.
Started on 20 February 2019, it received five million signatures in five days, and closed on 20 August with 6,103,056 signatories. The petition was an unusual opportunity to explore fluoridatedness vs. political impulse on a large scale, with reliable inputs. Imagine what it would have taken to lay hands on data like that in the pre-internet age(1).
Constituencies were defined as fluoridated where more than 0% people were, according to the best available information, being fluoridated in some or all of that constituency.
Constituencies defined as unfluoridated had 0% people being fluoridated where registered to vote.
In other words, partially fluoridated constituencies were counted as fluoridated. However, fluoridation-engendered increases in voter total fluoride intake via food and beverages travelling from manufacture or processing in areas of fluoridated people into the food chain of unfluoridated constituencies were ignored for the purpose of identifying constituencies as fluoridated or unfluoridated.
Fluoridatedness in unfluoridated constituencies is therefore underestimated by being disavowed. Therefore the imperfections in the modelling are countervailing at least, in terms of any effect of fluoride on Brexitiness.
Naturally fluoridated constituencies, defined as all or partly supplied with water with >0.5mg/litre F-, were separately identified.
Among constituencies with relatively high levels of apathy toward the Revoke A50 petition were found many with fluoridated constituents.
Conversely, fluoridated constituents were increasingly rare in the low apathy areas. Across the country there was a negative correlation between fluoridatedness and pro-Remain activity.
Officially, 10% of the population is fluoridated. In the lowest 50 petition signing constituencies by percentage, 19 are populated with artificially fluoridated and one with naturally fluoridated people, a total of 40%.
In the top 50 petition signing constituencies by percentage, only one is populated with fluoridated people, or 2%.
Many have commented on the stupidity of Brexit supporters. At the risk of becoming more like them, I agree with this world view. Whether Brexiteers are more stupid, dislike petitions, or are less politically engaged generally can all be debated. Had I not disliked either being fluoridated or ejected from the EU, this comparison would probably not have been made. I am biased.
In view of these biases, but primarily because the methodology of this could be improved in terms of fine-tuning the inputs in regard to a) fluoridatedness in nominally unfluoridated seats, b) partially fluoridated seats, and c) more informative large scale blood/urinary fluoride screening - and not by me - I have not proceeded to any probabilistic analysis. I declare the result (right) an impressive finding against the null hypothesis on its face.
What is intelligent about Brexit seems to be an unwelcome topic for the majority of its adherents, who are obviously functioning on an emotional axis crafted by Cambridge Analytica and their ilk. That's just an opinion, and it's begging the question to say Brexit is stupid even though it obviously is.
However, the data described above was assembled honestly, and all ultimately ascribed to official sources. Though I am Remain-biased, unfluoridatedness-biased and anti-stupidity, I was surprised just how well the results confirmed my bias without requiring any deliberate manipulation. Data didn't need to be selected or skewed in any way. And how could it be? (By lying).
My bias is identical in its typology to the bias in the story about fluoride and tooth decay that you probably heard first and several times over again. The "error" - and fluorothink cannot even respond to this kind without violating the rules of fluorothink - was choosing what to look at, to begin with. Fluoride researchers have been making lots of these sorts of errors recently, and not so recently.
Its main flaw in interpreting the data - the blockwise representation of status and lack of granularity - applies to the results of elections too. But I also think such a type of flaw can apply to nothing more profusely than fluoridation and its cornucopia of biochemical pathway targets in a population of individuals, of whose actual welfare status under its thrall fluorothink is wilfully and comprehensively ignorant.
Physiological reasons to suppose a biochemical influence of fluoride on mental development are not absent(2) but, according to fluorothink, all anti-fluoridation findings are wrong because they come from anti-fluoridationists and their websites. I'm happy to agree not 100% of everything out there is correct.
Organisations and flacks with fluoridated skin in the game are ever-ready to nitpick and scoff about long-overdue fluoride studies in the media. Quantity, not quality, characterises their output but ultimately they are like daleks when it comes to stairs. You will need ammo to pick off their various nonsenses as you go: this requires an intellectual armory.(3)
Remember, if you lose, it could be you next!
Fun as it might be, real science debates belong to conferences, not Twitter. There is a timeline of skullduggery as old as fluoridation itself. Debate there must be. But fluorothink doesn't really like showing its face. Fluorothink refuses to say with which of these statements those in favour of fluoridating your household, and those who don't want to get fluoridated, might see themselves in agreement.
Data supports the notions that fluoridated people are fatter, have less energy, and fewer possibilities for neuroplasticity.
Average constituents with added fluoride feel themselves to be less healthy, and logic would suggest ill people or those seeing illness around them are more prone to believe lies about spending £350 million extra a week on the NHS.
In other words, with their flag-waving hatred of Spanish waiters, the fluoridated Brexit voter tends to resemble an old person, sometimes trapped inside a superficially youthful body - like BeLeave hero Darren Grimes, who was born fluoridated in Durham North West.
Ecological evidence finds fluoridated people more Brexity. Perhaps this can even be twisted to make fluoride look like a good thing, I don't know. They could smooth it over, and say fluoride helped the country come to a decision, maybe.
For another 2019 petition to the House of Commons expressing pro-EU sentiment, this time against the prorogation of Parliament, I charted obesity against signature response in the following constituencies.
The results correspond closely with those of the 2016 referendum.
In fact:
Correlation does not imply causation, as we know. However, three times more seats with fluoridated constituents (18 seats) swung to Conservative in the December 2019 General Election than would have been expected from chance (6 seats). This is an example of correlation and causation being completely different.
While fluorothink will argue night into day to explain there's no proof of causation between fluoride and obesity, or fluoride and stupidity, it's a different story in the case of fluoride increasing income by 4.2% and increasing the probability of employment by 2%, for every 1mg/litre fluoride increment.(4)
When the results align with fluorothink, correlation exactly equals causation - according to this guy who likes to find any way available to diss papers with negative news about fluoridation.
We are in unfluoridated Sweden where, he concedes, levels above 2mg/litre are "relatively rare", and he even includes this histogram showing that levels above 1.5mg/litre are extremely rare.
If only Conservatives voting for more fluoridatedness oop north had caused wealth...which, squandered on chips and ale had made people unhealthy...increasing the appeal of the NHS...making them more Brexity...leading to exhaustion and helplessness...causing them to vote Conservative in the desperate hope reality will go away, we would finally have an understandable trajectory for Britain. But we can't say this.
This argument about causation vs. correlation doesn't exactly disprove anything about fluoridated EU Leavers being easy marks for the votemongers.
Anyone diminished in intellect due to their pregnant mother's water having been spiked - and let's not forget we're talking averages here, not real people - should be a cause for concern, not departing from a trading bloc.
Even if causation was determined, I would not propose one thing I don't like (fluoridated people with lower intelligence) as the single cause of a result I don't want (people with lower intelligence, detail-phobic jingoists, racists and xenophobes taking control over policymaking).
So, combining my biases, I do not feel fluoridation should be abandoned completely. It should be preserved for the special place in hell reserved, per Donald Tusk, for the architects of Brexit, who could perhaps be herded onto the Isle of Wight, isolated from the rest, and there thoroughly fluoridated.
As I am so biased, the role of voters' fluoride treatment in election and referendum results should be assessed by professional statisticians whose idea of fluoride is not just what the government says it is, i.e. a water treatment for areas with bad average teeth, with no biologically significant effects except politically good ones. Or only mine.(5)
Top-class mathematicians will observe that voters are not an area, and that water does not have any teeth. Being average does not, as fluorothink would have them believe, mean that every individual comes with the same mean value.
It is not necessary for the hypothesis of fluoride-induced idiocy that its political effects be intended by the paymaster, a Mr Matt Hancock, and his predecessors.
In fact whatever the real purpose of fluoridation is, it is irrelevant to the IQ or general health debate - unless Mr Hancock is suddenly confessing he knew all about what he was buying all along.
Unnecessary human additives such as fluoride do not know which systems they are supposed to be targeting. He is just getting it for you to try free while these effects are still being discovered.(6)
Fluoride and alcohol? Fluoride and necrotic villi?(7) In Birmingham you could call them Aston villi boom boom! But seriously whoever heard of putting fluoride and those things together? Everybody knows fluoride is the water thing. Or the toothpaste thing.
The science of selling stuff bleeds into election performance art. Dogs and stiff upper lips may be critical to Britain's future prosperity. But putting fluoride in dog bones and worrying about Gavin Williamson's post-ejaculatory intervals isn't a fluorothink thing to do. Who votes on the basis of what they haven't heard, however egregious the omission?
While the under-reported research continues quietly, you'll easily find a pro-fluorothink expert. As soon as you question fluorothink, they'll find you.
It seems pretty clear no UK Health Minister going back to Iain MacLeod has ever had enough time off from politicking to have any actual clue about the fluoride story, and if they ever did they would have lied about it rather than offend the agrochem lobby.
No mens rea is necessary. But wilful neglect, looking away, and crooked thinking seem essential to the perpetuation of such a situation.
But is it worth asking who might benefit from turning the poor into a bilious blob, or fossilising the brains of the electorate? For those to whom the EU represents peace, WW2 was about defeating Nazism. But for those who consider themselves enemies of the EU, the important thing about WW2 was defeating foreigners. Brexit supporters would struggle to give detailed reasons for doing so.
Note that the big general strikes of the past mostly originated in mining and industrial communities whose economy evolved under a top-down hierarchical command structure. Former one-trick-pony towns like Coventry, Lincoln, and Newcastle all fluoridate people nowadays.
At least four more elections must elapse before any politically-significant perinatal fluoridation effects can be reflected in the vote.
A 20 year moratorium on fluoridating people would reveal whether unfluoridated people vote more, turn lefty, grow up to be less parochial and myopic in their political choices, or more susceptible to low-grade political social media messages that they might otherwise treat with contempt.
Conversely to experiment positively on influencing elections with fluoride you would have to fluoridate Islington residents for 20 years to see whether more people start wearing top hats and riding to hounds. Or become typical Brexit footsoldiers.
The question about fluoridatedness and Brexitiness is why are the fluoridated voters more apathetic or pro-Brexit? And vice versa. Many are further away from Europe, but not all. Pro-EU Scotland is further away from Europe than all of the UK's fluoridated populations.
The coincidences keep on coming. Now I'm comparing your fluoridation status and 2019/2020 Council Tax levels.(8)
The top 25 most expensive included 9 with artificially and one with naturally fluoridated people, again 40%.
The 25 least expensive included just one municipality with fluoridated people: 4%.
The mentally-unimpaired unfluoridated of Band D paid between £200 and £1300 less per year than their dentally-assisted fluoridated equivalents.
Again this is a large sample with reliable inputs. To be fair, nobody really knows the fluoride intake of anyone. Their optimal dose is all over the place, so fluorothink favours dosing the water rather than the patient. Fluorothink doesn't think of them as patients. You don't want those. They'd have rights and shit. It would be too easy to find people with too high an intake if anyone looked, so fluorothink doesn't favour looking for those kind of things, but rather encourages us to take something-or-other's word for it.
Why are high council tax payers more likely to be fluoridated? You may wish to involve others to investigate e.g. the Local Government Association. Why are low council tax payers less likely to be fluoridated? Do councils like higher council tax rates? How do these receipts influence the authorities' desire to fluoridate their electorate? How is sick leave affected? How are staff affected by being fluoridated and dealing with fluoridated people? I can report anecdotally that it's pure poetry.(9)(10)
What other unpleasant non-fluorothinkian correlations that are not causations await the amateur investigator besides Brexitiness, obesity, and teenage pregnancy?
Changes in the suicide rate, the proportion of low pay workers, the provision of maternity pay, antidepressant use, and police force morale, revealed nothing suggestive of a desirable correlation with fluoridatedness. In every one of these cases, something completely the opposite emerges.
This might inspire a wish to liaise with more people - whom you will find to your despair have been drilled in fluorothink - i.e. not to think very much or, indeed, enough.(11)
In the end you are more likely affected than me. I have escaped from the island of the fluoridated to continental Europe, where fluoridating people has been resoundingly rejected or abandoned. Where I am, they've never even heard of it.
Give us the proof, you may say. Fluorothink gives some nobody the right to reject all your reasons not to swallow fluoride - and demand you prove to whoever-it-is why you shouldn't. A clever command and control set up will ensure nothing happens and nobody gets the blame. Perhaps you are one!
To those putatively affected I say, get the proof you need about any effect of fluoridatedness (or lack of one) on the voting habits of yourself...yourself.
What you are made of does inevitably play some role in your vote. It's not that diet can't affect your thinking, but that you really can't do anything about it when it does. You wouldn't expect vegans and meth addicts to vote in a similar fashion, would you?
This describes the kind of learned helplessness and lack of adaptability you might expect if you were born in the West Midlands or Newcastle and it turned out that some councillors voted in such a way that your future ability to empathise - whether with your own children, or with people of other ethnicities - was diminished as part of a general coarsening of human sensibilities sometimes known colloquially as DWP.(9)
I wouldn't rate fluoride as a pacifier or promoter of emotional bonding, not least because it enhances metal uptakes. I never saw so many wappy people until I hit Bomber County. Huge loony bin. Ruffians galore. This is where the "sense of proportion" kicks in.
A mass perinatal or subsequent dumbing-down of historically strike-prone areas might be seen as either dramatic or comedic. To protect himself, the fluoridated person needs to make his opinions fit his own circumstances.
This is why unfluoridated folks down in London do all the big decision making.
Thus the metropolitan elite might not be feeling the same urgency about Fred being fluoridated as does Fred himself when he pitches up in some provincial town, only to find his kinases the target of a cell of an uncaring, politically- if not scientifically-endowed fluorothink cult.(12)
The good news is, you can face being born with defective autophagy, excessive apoptosis and neuronal loss, and still get a job in local government.(9)
You'll never miss those deficits you never knew you always had.(13) Fluoridating people is an American invention. The US Army promotes it. But it cannot spell it.
Perhaps despite everything, you still believe that only water is fluoridated, and that my use of language is some kind of clever propaganda trick.(13)
Or that there must be some kind of a way out of confronting this now somehow, without of course ceasing to fluoridate people.(14)
Only media Editors can switch this massive lie around.(15)
Is Brexit a mental illness? Really you have to be biased to call anything a mental illness. In this case, I believe time has told. Ofwat itself has succumbed to fluoridatedness.(16)
And here it is, being worked out in the mother of all parliaments, not counting Iceland. Is Brexit an unintended consequence of the 1953 health minister spending all night playing cards at White's?(17)
If the UK can't even keep records of fluoride air pollution(18) I'm guessing UK electoral law probably doesn't have much to say about electoral interference by (intergenerational) mass intoxication or local authority-induced mitochondrial dysfunction.
Who, after all, plans for voter impediment attributable to people being born with fewer brain cells in the first place? Or too fat to get up and go vote? Fluoridated people have a personal responsibility, they will say. Your vote counts too, they will say. If you live in a treatment zone, you may vote differently, but it's still your idea. And Facebook's of course. If someone did plan for that, would the next generation keep those plans going, do you think?
Why all the screenshots? Fluorothink wants the wrong kind of facts removed. Fluorothink doesn't want considerations of chemical gerrymandering in any electoral law so, Brexit-like, if you don't want to risk having fluoridated children voting for secession by smaller and smaller countries you'll just have to lump it, or buy water in plastic bottles, and unfluoridated food.
And yet, according to fluorothink there is no extra fluoride in fluoridated food.(19)
Although come to think of it - and here you are coming to think of something for the first time - fluorothink doesn't put that on the label.
Fluorothink doesn't think the text of The Fluorine in Food Regulations 1959 ought to appear on the Internet either.
I have a copy I made in the 1980s. What did it say about putting fluorine in food?
It said don't. Ever.
(1) www.nfl.si/Loos
(2) https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0551-x
(3) www.nfl.si/stamps
(4) https://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2017/01/05/swedish-study-fluoride-no-cognitive/
(5) www.nfl.si/f-bombs
(6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30659323
(7) https://europepmc.org/article/MED/24022343
(8) www.nfl.si/ct
(9) www.nfl.si/twata
(10) https://lincolnshirereporter.co.uk/2019/11/nhs-sick-leave-figures-show-lincolnshire-staff-at-breaking-point/
(11) https://twitter.com/search?q=%23fluorothink&src=typed_query
(12) www.nfl.si/new_doctors
(13) www.nfl.si/foi100001
(14) https://is.gd/DtAqsA
(15) www.nfl.si/ed
(16) www.nfl.si/ludo
(17) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Macleod
(18) www.nfl.si/foi1001
(19) https://twitter.com/turizemptuj/status/939830361265201153
Julian Bohan 1 January 2020