DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fluoride Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fluoride Debate 1 THE FLUORIDE DEBATE PAUL CONNETT AND KEN PERROTT 2 Contents Introduction - Ken Perrott .......................................................................................................... 3 First article: Paul Connett - October 30, 2013 ........................................................................... 5 Ken Perrott - October 30, 2013 .................................................................................................. 9 Paul Connett - November 4, 2013............................................................................................ 18 Ken Perrott - November 7, 2013 .............................................................................................. 36 Why I Support fluoridation: Ken Perrott - November 11, 2013 .............................................. 46 Paul Connett - November 14, 2013.......................................................................................... 52 Ken Perrott -November 17, 2013 ............................................................................................. 56 Paul Connett - November 21, 2013.......................................................................................... 65 Ken Perrott - November 25, 2013 ............................................................................................ 78 Paul Connett - December 2, 2013 ............................................................................................ 90 Ken Perrott - December 9, 2013 ............................................................................................ 103 Paul Connett - December 12, 2013 ........................................................................................ 119 Ken Perrott- December 16, 2013 ........................................................................................... 135 Paul Connett - December 25, 2013 ........................................................................................ 150 Ken Perrott - 1 December 30, 2013 ....................................................................................... 161 Closing statement: Paul Connett - January 22, 2014 ............................................................. 176 Final article – Ken Perrott - 23 January 23, 2014 .................................................................. 196 3 Introduction - Ken Perrott This is a collection of articles written by Paul Connett and Ken Perrott in their exchange of opinions on the fluoridation of drinking water and related issues. While loosely titled The Fluoride Debate this was in no way meant to be a debate in the gladiatorial sense. It was not about “winners” and “losers.” Our intention was to discuss the science in a format encouraging good faith discussion and intelligent participation from commenters. I leave it to readers to decide how successful, or otherwise, we have been in this. Introducing the authors The authors in this "debate' have similar academic and professional backgrounds. Both have PhDs in chemistry, worked as research chemists and are now retired. Neither of us have done original research on fluoridation specifically, although both have become involved in the public discussion of it since there retirements. Paul Connett is an executive director of the Fluoride Action Network and campaigns throughout the world against fluoridation. He is, together with James Beck & H. Spedding Micklem, author of the book "The Case Against Fluoride." Paul has made several speaking tours in New Zealand as part of his campaign and will have another tour in February, 2014. Ken Perrott is a retired research chemist. These days he writes a blog, Open Parachute (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/), which deals issues related to science, human rights, philosophy and religion. Many of his articles have argued against pseudoscience and the misrepresentation of science. He has written a number of articles on scientific issues related to fluoridation (see http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/) Format of debate The exchange occurred as posts on the blog Open Parachute. Paul originally proposed it as 5 pairs of articles with Paul starting and raising specific arguments against fluoridation followed by my reponse.– Paul Connett’s specific argument first with my response second. I thought this would be a convenient size for a series of blog articles. Paul's first article went live on October 30, 2013. Without the discipline of an external moderator the series ended up a longer than originally planned - we ended up with 8 pairs of articles, with my final closing article posted on January 23, 2014. Responding to requests from commenters about my own personal, rather than scientific, motivations I also posted an extra article Why I support fluoridation on November 11. Inevitably its content was also debated. Editing of articles 4 The articles here are basically the same as originally posted in the debate. I have corrected some typos and added reference lists to my own articles recognising that the hot links provided in a blog article may not be suitable for all readers of this document. I have avoided editing or altering Paul's articles except for a few minor issues like adjusting image size.. Comment discussions Many others, representing both sides of the "debate," participated in this exchange through the comments section of each article. Some commenters were very well informed, often with professional experience related to fluoridation. There were almost 2000 comments in total with many of them containing useful information and citations. Unfortunately it is not feasible to include the comment discussion here but I urge interested readers to browse through them on-line. Links to debate You can easily find original blog articles, together with comments, at the link Fluoride Debate (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoride-debate/) Advice to readers Such lengthy articles, and so many of them, might be intimidating to some readers. My advice is to browse, read the articles that interest you or cover issues of interest. I imagine only the most dedicated reader would start at the beginning and read to the end. Any reader wishing to make contact with me can do so via my About me blog page (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/about-me/). 5 First article: Paul Connett - October 30, 2013 This is part 1 of a five-part series of internet exchanges on the fluoridation debate between Paul Connett (USA) and Ken Perrott (NZ). 1. Fluoridation is a poor medical practice. 2. The evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay is very weak. Better alternatives for fighting tooth decay 3. The large database that indicates that fluoride can impact the brain of animals and humans. 4. Other health concerns and the lack of an adequate margin of safety to protect everyone drinking fluoridated water. 5. Key moments since 1990 that should have forced an end to fluoridation. Paul Connett is co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010) and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (www.FluorideALERT.org ) Paul’s cv and list of publications is attached. Part 1. Fluoridation is a poor medical practice Introduction. Using the public water supply to deliver medical treatment is a very unusual practice. In fact it has only been done only once before and that was a short trial in which iodine was added to the drinking water to help fight hypothyroidism. However this was quickly abandoned when it was found that some people were being over-exposed to iodine. Since then fluoridation has been the only example. The reasons for not using the water to deliver medical treatment are fairly obvious. 1) It is impossible to control the dose people get. Once a chemical is added to the water to treat people (as opposed to treating the water to make it safe or palatable to drink) it is impossible to control the dose people get. People drink very different amounts of water. In short, engineers at the water works can control the concentration added to the water (mg/liter) but no one can control the total dose (mg/day) individuals receive. 2) It is totally indiscriminate. It goes to everyone regardless of age, regardless of health or nutritional status. Of particular concern is that it goes to people with poor kidney function who are unable to clear the fluoride from their bodies via the kidneys as effectively as others. It thus accumulates in their bones more rapidly. It also goes to people with low or borderline iodine intake, which makes them more vulnerable to fluoride’s impact on the thyroid gland. In general, according to studies done in India, people with poor diet (low protein, low calcium and low vitamin intake) are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects. 6 3) It violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medical treatment. This is a very important medical ethic which is fully described on the website of the American Medical Association (www.AMA.org). It is very surprising that so many medical doctors standby while the community does to everyone what they are not allowed to do to a single patient. The above arguments would apply to any medicine added to the drinking water but there are other aspects to the fluoride ion, which makes it particularly unsuitable for addition to the drinking water. 4) Fluoride is NOT a nutrient. There is not one single biochemical process in the body that has been shown to require fluoride for normal function (we will see later that fluoride’s predominant action on teeth is topical not systemic). However, 5) There are many biochemical processes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mapping the Creation-Evolution Debate in Public Life
    MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART (Under the Direction of Edward Panetta) ABSTRACT Evolution versus creation is a divisive issue as religion is pitted against science in public discourse. Despite mounting scientific evidence in favor of evolution and legal decisions against the teaching of creationism in public schools, the number of advocates who still argue for creationist teaching in the science curriculum of public schools remains quite large. Public debates have played a key role in the creationist movement, and this study examines public debates between creationists and evolutionists over thirty years to track trends and analyze differences in arguments and political style in an attempt to better understand why creationism remains salient with many in the American public. INDEX WORDS: Creation; Evolution; Public Debate; Argumentation; Political Style; Bill Nye MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART B.A., The University of Georgia, 2010 B.S.F.R., The University of Georgia, 2010 M.A.T., The University of Georgia, 2014 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2016 © 2016 Andrew Judson Hart All Rights Reserved MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART Major Professor: Edward Panetta Committee: Barbara Biesecker Thomas Lessl Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2016 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without Dr. Ed Panetta pushing me down the path to study the creation-evolution debates and his work with me on this through the many drafts and edits.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online
    Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Nani Jansen Reventlow, Jonathon Penney, Amy Johnson, Rey Junco, Casey Tilton, Kate Coyer, Nighat Dad, Adnan Chaudhri, Grace Mutung’u, Susan Benesch, Andres Lombana-Bermudez, Helmi Noman, Kendra Albert, Anke Sterzing, Felix Oberholzer-Gee, Holger Melas, Lumi Zuleta, Simin Kargar, J. Nathan Matias, Nikki Bourassa, and Urs Gasser. 2016. Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Publication. Published Version https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/harmfulspeech Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33746096 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Harmful Speech Online Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online a collection of essays August 2017 Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online Acknowledgments I am deeply grateful to the writers and thinkers who dedicated their time to contributing a piece to this collection and shared their ideas and research with us. Special thanks to Susan Benesch, who gave thoughtful and insightful feedback into the collection’s con- struction and served as a guiding light throughout its assembly, and to Sandra Cortesi, who shared sage advice and offered recommendations that shaped the collection’s development. I thank the members of the Harmful Speech Online project at Berkman Klein, whose work is helping to illuminate the many challenges, problems, ideas, and solutions related to harmful speech online, and knitting together a common understanding of these.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Find a Word, Words, Or a Sentence in This Pdf's
    How to find a word, words, or a sentence in this Pdf’s First you need to download the Pdf or the Pdf’s on your computer. Ones you have clicked on a Pdf title, after a while, you will see the Pdf opening. Download-speed depends on your internet speed and your computer. If the Pdf is downloaded and you see it open, save it on your computer in a new folder that you made for it. You can download as many Pdf’s as you want and save them in that folder. If you downloaded all of them in one folder, then you can also look for a word or more in all that Pdf’s at once. To start a search, you have two possibilities: 1. Searching in one Pdf. Open the Pdf, on the top you have a menu, click on “Edit” and select “Find” for a word in this Pdf. Click on next to see the next place in that Pdf. 2. Searching in one or more Pdf’s. Open one Pdf, click on “Edit”, go to “Advanced search” A window will open. Make your choice “current document” or “All Pdf documents in” If you made the choice “All documents in”, click on the arrow right on the bar below it. There you can look for the place on your computer where you have the Pdf-Folder. If you don’t see the folder click on “Browse for location” and find the folder on your computer, then click on it once. This is the place where the search will be done.
    [Show full text]
  • Countering Information Influence Activities a Handbook for Communicators
    Countering information influence activities A handbook for communicators Countering information influence activities A handbook for communicators Countering information influence activities – A handbook for communicatiors Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) Layout: Advant Order No: MSB1263 – March 2019 ISBN: 978-91-7383-867-2 This publication is also available in Swedish Att möta informationspåverkan – Handbok för kommunikatörer Order. No: MSB1260 – Revised December 2018 ISBN: 978-91-7383-864-1 Content Foreword ..................................................................................... 5 Introduction ..................................................................................7 What is the role of the communicator? ................................................................ 8 Our approach .................................................................................................... 9 PART I. Becoming aware of information influence ...........................11 What are information influence activities? ...........................................................11 How are social vulnerabilities exploited? ............................................................ 13 How are information influence activities different from other forms of communication? ......................................................................... 15 PART II. Identifying information influence...................................... 17 What is the purpose of information influence activities? ...................................... 17
    [Show full text]
  • Countering Information Influence Activities: the State of The
    RESEARCH REPORT Countering Information Influence Activities The State of the Art 2 Countering Information Influence Activities: The State of the Art, version 1.4 (1 July 2018) James Pamment, Howard Nothhaft, Henrik Agardh-Twetman, Alicia Fjällhed Department of Strategic Communication, Lund University MSB’s points of contact: Fredrik Konnander Publication number MSB1261 – July 2018 ISBN 978-91-7383-865-8 MSB has ordered and financed this report. The authors are solely responsible for the content. 3 Preface This is version 1.4 of a report that aims to provide an overview of current thinking on how to counteract information influence activities. It was commissioned to support the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency’s (MSB) work in strengthening societal resilience against information influence activities. The report is intended to offer (1) a scientific overview to support the development of the MSB handbook Counter Influence Strategies for Communicators, (2) a guide and framework that can support the development of training and education on counter influence, and (3) a Swedish perspective on the knowledge currently available on information influence activities. The authors wish to thank MSB and the dozens of interviewees and reviewers without whom the study would not have been possible. 4 Foreword The term “Fake News” has catapulted the topic of information operations into the centre of a heated and mostly ill-informed public debate. One common misconception is that the problem is new. Another mistake is to assume that information, as the most visible part of the problem, is necessarily the most important. Both of these are at best only partly true.
    [Show full text]
  • Catching Swedish Phish How Sweden Is Protecting Its 2018 Elections
    DEFENDING DIGITAL DEMOCRACY PROJECT Catching Swedish Phish How Sweden is Protecting its 2018 Elections Gabriel Cederberg PAPER AUGUST 2018 Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.belfercenter.org Statements and views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not imply endorsement by Harvard University, the Harvard Kennedy School, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, or the U.S. Goverment. Design & layout by Andrew Facini Cover photo: Eleven days before the 2018 election, the back side of the Swedish parliament is reflected in the water in Stockholm, Sweden. (AP Photo/Michael Probst) Copyright 2018, President and Fellows of Harvard College Printed in the United States of America DEFENDING DIGITAL DEMOCRACY PROJECT Catching Swedish Phish How Sweden is Protecting its 2018 Elections Gabriel Cederberg PAPER AUGUST 2018 About the Author Gabriel Cederberg is a rising sophomore at Harvard College, studying Government with a secondary in Economics. He has grown up speaking Swedish at home in Minnesota and has visited family in Sweden throughout his life. Since December 2017, he has worked as a Research Assistant at the Belfer Center’s Defending Digital Democracy Project. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Eric Rosenbach and the Belfer Center for support- ing my research. I am also grateful to Simon Jones for his help during the final editing process. Finally, a big thank you to everyone—both named and unnamed in this report—who took time during the busiest part of the election cycle to speak with me.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fallacies
    List of fallacies For specific popular misconceptions, see List of common if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose misconceptions. correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those log- ical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guar- A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric anteed to yield true conclusions. Types of propositional fallacies: which undermines an argument’s logical validity or more generally an argument’s logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. • Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the These are commonly used styles of argument in convinc- other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.[8] ing people, where the focus is on communication and re- sults rather than the correctness of the logic, and may be • Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an in- used whether the point being advanced is correct or not. dicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8] 1 Formal fallacies • Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore Main article: Formal fallacy not B.[8] A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form.[1] All formal fallacies are specific types 1.2 Quantification fallacies of non sequiturs. A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the • Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the something for granted because it would probably be quantifier of the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • JSE 294 Online.Indd
    JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION A Publication of the Society for Scientifi c Exploration (ISSN 0892-3310) Editorial Offi ce: Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Society for Scientifi c Exploration, Kathleen E. Erickson, JSE Managing Editor, 151 Petaluma Blvd. So., #301, Petaluma, CA 94952 USA [email protected], 1-415-435-1604, (fax 1-707-559-5030) Manuscript Submission: Submit manuscripts online at http://journalofscientifi cexploration.org/index.php/jse/login Editor-in-Chief: Stephen E. Braude, University of Maryland Baltimore County Managing Editor: Kathleen E. Erickson, Petaluma, CA Assistant Managing Editor: Eve E. Blasband, Larkspur, CA Assistant Managing Editor: Elissa Hoeger, Princeton, NJ Associate Editors Carlos S. Alvarado, Th e Rhine Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC Daryl Bem, Ph.D., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Robert Bobrow, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY Courtney Brown, Emory University, Atlanta, GA Etzel Cardeña, Lund University, Sweden Jeremy Drake, Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA Bernard Haisch, Digital Universe Foundation, USA Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin, TX Roger D. Nelson, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Mark Rodeghier, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago, IL Daniel Sheehan, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA Michael Sudduth, San Francisco State University, CA Society for Scientifi c Exploration Website — http://www.scientifi cexploration.org Editorial Board Chair, Prof. Richard C. Henry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Dr. Mikel Aickin, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Dr. Steven J. Dick, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC Dr. Peter Fenwick, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK Dr. Alan Gauld, University of Nottingham, UK Prof. Robert G. Jahn, Princeton University, NJ Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Why We Argue, Second Edition Is a Timely and Important Book
    “Why We Argue, Second Edition is a timely and important book. The inability to have productive discussions on matters on which we deeply disagree poses a threat to our democracy, and it can affect our mental health as citizens as well. In their wide-ranging discussion, Aiken and Talisse characterize the nature of the challenges involved, and they make useful suggests as to how we might go about addressing them. I highly recommend their book.” Sanford Goldberg, Northwestern University, USA This page intentionally left blank Why We Argue (And How We Should) Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason presents an accessible and engaging introduction to the theory of argument, with special emphasis on the way argument works in public political debate. The authors develop a view according to which proper argument is necessary for one’s individual cognitive health; this insight is then expanded to the collective health of one’s society. Proper argumentation, then, is seen to play a central role in a well-functioning democracy. Written in a lively style and filled with examples drawn from the real world of contemporary politics, and questions following each chapter to encourage discussion, Why We Argue (And How We Should) reads like a guide for the participation in, and maintenance of, modern democracy. An excellent student resource for courses in critical thinking, political philo- sophy, and related fields, Why We Argue (And How We Should) is an important contribution to reasoned debate. What’s New in the Second Edition: Updated examples throughout the book, including examples from the 2016 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Ne? ALL WE KNOW ALL WE DON’T
    CORONAVIRUS SPECIAL DIGITAL ISSUE www.outlookindia.com June 22, 2020 W h o hat is ‘ W p c la r ? sm e a a t a t a t h e d d e e ’ r h a C t o p v s id e’ y ? Wher ? I s i ? t k a r m o ild w er n? n strai w do ? k e c o n l W ci he vac e re is the h t d i D A r e y o u im mu COVID-19 ne? ALL WE KNOW ALL WE DON’T RNI NO. 7044/1961 ‹ N A V I G A T O R › EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Ruben Banerjee MANAGING EDITOR Sunil Menon EXECUTIVE EDITOR Satish Padmanabhan FOREIGN EDITOR Pranay Sharma COVID-19 POLITICAL EDITOR Bhavna Vij-Aurora SENIOR EDITOR Giridhar Jha (Mumbai) CHIEF ART DIRECTOR Deepak Sharma SPECIAL WRITERS Lola Nayar, Qaiser Mohammad Ali (Senior Associate Editors), G.C. Shekhar (Associate Editor), Jeevan Prakash Sharma (Senior Assistant Editor), Ajay Sukumaran, Puneet Nicholas Yadav, Jyotika Sood, Lachmi Deb Roy (Assistant Editors), Naseer Ganai (Senior Special Correspondent), Preetha Nair (Special Correspondent), Salik Ahmad (Senior Correspondent) COPY DESK Rituparna Kakoty (Senior Associate Editor), Anupam Bordoloi, Saikat Niyogi, Satyadeep (Associate Editors), Syed Saad Ahmed (Assistant Editor) PHOTOGRAPHERS S. Rakshit (Chief Photo Coordinator), Jitender Gupta (Photo Editor), Tribhuvan Tiwari (Deputy Photo Editor), Sandipan Chatterjee, Apoorva Salkade (Sr Photographers), Suresh Kumar Pandey (Staff Photographer) J.S. Adhikari (Sr Photo Researcher), U. Suresh Kumar (Digital Library) DESIGN Saji C.S. (Chief Designer), Leela (Senior Designer), Devi Prasad, Padam Gupta (Sr DTP Operators) DIGITAL Neha Mahajan (Associate Editor), Soumitra Mishra
    [Show full text]
  • RESIST Counter-Disinformation Toolkit
    RESIST Counter-disinformation toolkit Foreword Disinformation is not a new phenomenon: malicious rumours have always travelled faster than the truth. However a changing media environment means that disinformation can now spread faster than ever, to more people than ever. The rise of disinformation and the multiple threats this poses to our society means that we must respond urgently. And we must do this while continuing to embrace the incredible opportunities open to us to engage with the public in an online world. We are at the forefront of a growing international consensus on the need to take action against disinformation, regardless of source or intent. Our vision is to strengthen the institutions of democracy and uphold our democratic values by ensuring the public and our media have the means to distinguish true news from disinformation. This starts with us, as government communicators. We hold the responsibility of delivering the truth, well told. The systematic approach outlined in this toolkit is a crucial starting point. It is designed to help your organisations build resilience to the threat of disinformation step by step, while continuing to deliver effective communications to the public on the issues that matter most. Alex Aiken Executive Director of Government Communications 3 RESIST Disinformation: a toolkit The purpose of this toolkit is to help you prevent the spread of disinformation. It will enable you to develop a response when disinformation affects your organisation’s ability to do its job, the people who depend on your services, or represents a threat to the general public. What is disinformation? Disinformation is the deliberate creation and/or sharing of false information with the intention to deceive and mislead audiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Original Attachment
    Lynsey Wilson From: Leave.EU <[email protected]> Sent: 15 March 2019 19:05 To: Marcia Pepperall (Councillor) Subject: Parliament versus the People To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Dear Supporter, On Wednesday the House of Commons stabbed the people of Britain in the back. Last night they drove the knife in again. More than two years after we decided to leave the European Union, in the largest democratic exercise in the nation's history, MPs instructed Theresa May to grovel to Brussels for yet more delay after taking No Deal off the table. We’ve already heard that the EU is preparing a huge addition to the already outrageous Brexit bill as the price for an extension – which the government wants to last for three months, but European leaders are already gleefully trying to drag it out to two years. We don’t owe Brussels a penny, but we’ll be handing over tens of billions for another two years if our Europhile MPs get their way. To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. HELP RESCUE THE REFERENDUM | DONATE TO LEAVE.EU Our greatest hope at present is a veto from a patriotic European nation, breaking the unanimous decision needed by the EU to grant the extension. The relationships Nigel Farage has built with Eurosceptics across the continent for decades may prove decisive.
    [Show full text]