www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

The above video was shot October 9, 2014.  I uploaded it the day after but did not publish it or write a follow up article because the remainder of the year was consumed by life and other, more private activism not related to Fluoridation.

However I thought it would be fitting to release it now, in lieu of a recent flurry of news reports regarding the brand new study published by the University of Kent on public water fluoridation.  If you haven’t seen – you should – the study looked at public water fluoridation as a medical intervention and its suggestively high correlation to the presence of thyroid disorders in the population.   Honestly, the study would not be so damning if we were not retrospectively evaluating the epidemiological facts 60 years AFTER Oscar Ewing, Rockefellers, ALCOA, Duke, Edward Bernays and the corporate US “PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE” did brainwash the public into loving their slow death via the sink tap.

This study consequently got MASSIVE press coverage, just see for yourself:

In my opinion, a water shed moment – but we have had them before & the City Council stupidly repeats, as Councilman Steve Schewel does in the video – that public water fluoridation is “safe and effective.”  This is despite the fact that the city has made no visceral effort to have their drugs approved by the FDA, and it looks like the FDA continue to evade evaluating Fluoride for its purported safety and effectiveness.

The publication of the study & a curious note from my Uncle compelled me to pen a letter to City Council about this, and also reminding them of this epic October 9th appearance, which you can read at the conclusion of this update.

Since we have already filed assault charges at the Durham Police Department and nothing was done, my intention here is to simply demonstrate how much the City Council has been wantonly negligent in the face of the blatantly obvious scientific dissent to their position.  Hopefully one day, this evidence can be used to bring them to justice, preferably by indictment and eventual arrest.

TO: William Bill, Diane Catotti, Steve Schewel, Don Moffit, Eddie Davis, Cora-Cole McFadden, Eugene Brown

Happy New Year!

It has been almost four months since I last appeared before you.

If you will remember I demanded last October 9 during a council work session that the Durham County Board of Health kindly submit a formal request to the Federal Drug Administration to test/approve Hydrofluorosilicic acid for being “safe and effective” when orally ingested for the purpose of preventing tooth decay.

This request was made pursuant my understanding of the entities who have jurisdiction to regulate the use and distribution of medicinally intended substances, such as hydrofluorosilicic acid is being applied in this case.  My intention was merely to establish that if the City of Durham collectively endorses the idea of medicating their public water supply with fluoride in practice (they do), that they should at least follow the minimum proper federal laws to have the drugs approved as being safe and effective.

Of course – you very well know that I never bought into the US Health Service & academic Balogna that says drinking fluoride is safe and effective.  I know you know! Because you are apparently treating my October appearance as a “rhetorical request,” as evidenced by the total lack of follow up on my visit last year.

If I am wrong and you have submitted a request to the FDA then I will be the most pleased to hear that you have, and admit I was wrong.  But if that is the case then I would like to know when they expect to begin testing?

In the meantime Council, you might want to start taking this issue seriously because the only reason I am writing you today is due to a very recent publication in the London Telegraph which highlights a brand new study from the University of Kent on public water Fluoridation, that completely damns it!

Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11430087/Fluoride-in-drinking-water-may-trigger-depression-and-weight-gain-warn-scientists.html
Original Study: Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride
as a Public Health Intervention

Who do you think is liable if this turns out to be true Council?? Who do you think the people will blame? Which side of the fence do you honestly believe is riskier to be on?  Call me selfish but if I were you guys, I would be following the precautionary principle on this one, if for no other reason than to save my own sorry ass!

Precautionary Principle Defined

But honestly Council this damning new study is not really why I’m sharing it with you. You have already proven yourselves in battle to be impervious to even the most mainstream academic and widely accepted news sources of information that discredit the pro fluoride position. Why reverse course and do the right thing now?

It’s not like I haven’t already shared with you numerous legitimate scientific publications which should have resulted in the cessation of water fluoridation, at least since 2011.

It’s not like WTVD didn’t already daftly expose your scam in 2012 with their 7.5 minute report….

It’s not like a Deputy Sheriff did not already escort me out of the subsequent “public health board meeting” which later resulted in Durham’s re-committal to the policy of public water fluoridation….

It was something else…

A curious thing; the telegraph article was shared by my Uncle in an e-mail to me, with the subject line “Vindication.”

He says to me, before sharing the link:

“Here’s more people trying to catch up to Corey.”

The article – which you must read, is one of volumes I have read and tried desperately during the last 3+ years to share with you and/or the public.

But let me be qualify something for you.  I am not “VINDICATED” when such an article appears in the news, and adds to the pile of others I have collected which reinforce my position. I already have more than enough!

I do not like it when scientists find new evidence to suggest drinking fluoride is poisonous.

I do not get any pleasure whatsoever from speaking to you, or feeling compelled to take time off of work so I can try and warn you of the damage you are doing to the population of Durham.

I do not enjoy the social weirdness that accompanies knowing what the government is up to.

I have already read enough of these articles to KNOW that what I’m talking about is correct, so there is no vindication in a reconfirmation of something I already know.  I will ONLY feel vindicated when you collectively start living up to your oath of office, and wake up to your own slavery to the more intimidating layers of your own system

…and most of all, when you decide to STOP FLUORIDATING THE WATER.

Yours Sincerely,

Corey Sturmer

www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

 

TO: Corey Sturmer

FROM: Diane Catotti

Thanks for the additional info.

 

 

Source: The Charleston Gazette

ByKen Ward Jr., Staff writer for the Charleston Gazette

A Raleigh County man pleaded guilty Thursday to repeatedly faking compliant water quality standards for coal companies, in a case that raises questions about the self-reporting system state and federal regulators use as a central tool to judge if the mining industry is following pollution limits.

John W. Shelton, 47, of Daniels, admitted to a charge of conspiracy to violate the federal Clean Water Act, saying he diluted water samples, substituted water he knew to be clean for actual mining discharges and did not keep water samples refrigerated, as required by state and federal rules, court records show.

Shelton was a field technician, and then a field supervisor, for Appalachian Laboratories Inc., a Beckley company that was certified by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to sample and analyze water discharges from mining operations as part of the Clean Water Act program.

In a criminal charge filed in early September, Assistant U.S. Attorney Blaire Malkin alleged that Shelton took part in a conspiracy from the time of his hiring at Appalachian Laboratories, in 2008, through at least June 2013.

“The objects of the conspiracy were to increase the profitability of Appalachian by avoiding certain costs associated with full compliance with the Clean Water Act and to maintain and increase its revenue by providing its customers and the agencies regulating those customers with reports purporting to show that those customers were operating their sites in compliance with the CWA and thereby allow those customers to avoid fines and other costs associated with bringing their operations into compliance with the CWA and thus encourage and maintain for Appalachian the patronage of those customers,” the charging document alleged.

Appalachian Laboratories officials did not return a phone call seeking comment for this story. Other coal industry officials also did not respond to a request for comment.

In an agreed-to “stipulation of facts” filed in court Thursday, prosecutors and Shelton said that, throughout his time with the company, another Appalachian Laboratories official — referred to as “First Known Person” — stressed to him the importance of “pulling good samples,” a term that was understood to mean samples that would comply with permit limits, not necessarily samples that were taken properly.

Among other things, the stipulation says that employees of Appalachian did not maintain water samples at the proper temperature, by putting them on ice in coolers, unless they knew that DEP inspectors were in the area.

Shelton and other Appalachian employees “falsified and rendered inaccurate” water samples by diluting them with distilled water or replacing them with water they knew to be in compliance with permit standards, according to the stipulation. The document says that Appalachian officials used the term “honeyhole” to refer to water from certain sites that would always test within permit limits and could be used in place of or to dilute “bad water.”

“Each time that Shelton and others at Appalachian diluted the sample water or replaced the sample water with water that would pass, they allowed water that they believed exceeded permit limits to discharge into the waters of the United States,” the stipulation stated.

Shelton pleaded guilty Thursday afternoon before U.S. District Judge Irene Berger and was released on $10,000 bail. He faces up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $250,000 when he is sentenced on Feb. 26, 2015.

U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin said his office’s investigation into the water sampling issue, conducted jointly with the FBI and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is continuing, but he did not offer further details.

David McLeon, special agent in charge of the EPA’s regional criminal enforcement program, said Shelton’s plea “demonstrates that laboratories and their senior managers who callously place the American people at risk by submitting false reports will be held accountable.”

Prosecutors said Appalachian does water sampling for more than 100 mine sites in West Virginia. Court records, though, do not indicate which mining operations were involved in the falsified samples or how widespread a problem Shelton’s plea indicates exists.

Under the Clean Water Act, companies with water pollution permits are required to take periodic samples and submit reports to the DEP on whether those samples indicate their operations are in compliance with allowed pollution discharge limits. State and federal agencies take some samples themselves, but the majority of sampling is done by companies, with results filed with the government for its review.

Problems with this system have come up before in West Virginia. In 2008, after federal officials sued Massey Energy over widespread water violations at its mines in the state, DEP officials revealed that, for about five years, they had not been monitoring the discharge reports filed with them by the coal-mining industry. Agency officials said that problem has been remedied.

Derek Teaney, senior staff attorney with the group Appalachian Mountain Advocates, said the DEP — the state agency with primary Clean Water Act responsibility in West Virginia — needs to investigate what was going on with Appalachian Laboratories. Teaney said the DEP should audit any water quality sampling performed by Appalachian Laboratories and, perhaps, do an increased program of its own sampling at mines that could have been involved.

“The whole Clean Water Act system relies on self-reporting,” said Teaney, whose group monitors coal industry compliance and files lawsuits against water quality violators. “If that self-reporting can’t be trusted, then the system just falls apart.”

Kelley Gillenwater, a spokeswoman for the DEP, said the agency gave federal investigators all the results it had from water sampling performed by Appalachian Laboratories.

“We haven’t, at this time, conducted any additional testing at those sites because of these allegations but have continued with our routine field sampling,” Gillenwater said.

The DEP Division of Mining and Reclamation’s goal for each quarter is to conduct its own field sampling for at least 25 percent of water pollution outlets, so that all outlets are sampled at least once annually, Gillenwater said.

Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kward@wvgazette.com, 304-348-1702 or follow @kenwardjr on Twitter.

– See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141009/GZ01/141009217/1419#sthash.3XvBD0QM.dpuf

Relevant Link: Don O’ Leary is an Orange County Resident Running for County Comissioner in 2016, he also has a lot of great, relevant videos/articles at his site.

My Letter to Orange County Health Director Colleen Bridger After Orange County Referred Our  September 4 Anti-Fluoride Petitions To her

Dear Colleen,My name is Corey Sturmer & I am a 25 year resident of the triangle.  In 2011 I became aware that the city governments of Wake, Durham & Orange county have had a more than 60 year long policy of purchasing waste chemicals (hydrofluorosilicic acid/ silicofluorides, fluorosilicic acid) from fertilizer & aluminum industry & distributing it to the citizens through their water supply, ostensibly to help “prevent tooth decay.”

I happen to know that the propaganda surrounding its efficacy as a preventative health measure came directly from the health & human services department of our federal government, and secondarily through the public health departments of the respective states…Then on downward to each county.  Generally speaking the states’ position has amazingly not changed much in the last 60 years, despite all of the evidence which has come out on the practice since it was first instituted in the late 1950’s.

I was present earlier this month before the board of commissioners of orange county to provide a common sense approach to why this policy should be reversed IMMEDIATELY.  I am e-mailing you because I understand this issue has now been brought to your attention by the commissioners & they are waiting for some advisement from you & the board of health of orange county.

So I would like you to please consider the following as common sense reasons why this policy should end.

Civil Liberty, Informed Consent, Lack of Licensure

 

Nobody in the history of public water fluoridation has ever debated the fact that the alleged purpose of the policy is to help prevent tooth decay.

 

According to the Federal Drug Administration’s code section 201(g)1, definition of a drug, a drug is defined by its INTENDED APPLICATION

 

Source: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/fdcactchaptersiandiishorttitleanddefinitions/ucm086297.htm

(g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.
If the county wants to apply fluoride to the water for the purposes of preventing tooth decay, then they are legally bound to have it approved by the FDA as being safe and effective for such an application.  Please take notice that Fluoride has NEVER BEEN APPROVED by the FDA: http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/not-approved/
Since it is impossible for any being to deny that fluoridation is de facto drugging of the water supply, we then need to consider what North Carolina general statutes say about distributing (unapproved) drugs without a license.  It is in fact a Class H Felony to do so, which would mean the offending parties in Orange county are guilty of violating North Carolina state drug laws.See: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_106/GS_106-145.6.pdf

G.S. 106-145.6
§ 106-145.6. Denial, revocation, and suspension of license; penalties for violations.
Adverse Action.
The Commissioner may deny a license to an applicant if the Commissioner determines that granting the applicant a license would not be in the public interest. Public interest considerations shall be limited to factors and qualifications that are directly related to the protection of public health and safety. The Commissioner may deny, suspend, or revoke a license for substantial or repeated violations
of this Article or for conviction of a violation of any other federal, state, or local prescription drug law or regulation. Chapter 150B of the General Statutes governs the denial, suspension, or revocation of a license under this Article.
(b)
Criminal Sanctions.
It is unlawful to engage in wholesale distribution in this State without a wholesale distributor license or to violate any other provision of this Article. A person who violates this Article commits a Class H felony. A fine imposed for a violation of this Article may not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).

Lastly – drugging the water supply in such a manner violates informed consent laws, which require the patient to be informed & to give their explicit consent before accepting a medical treatment like fluoride.  It may also violate certain individual’s freedom of religious expression since some religions forbid consumption of toxins such as fluoride.  If they don’t even know fluoride is added to their water they could be unwittingly committing blaspheme!

These basic rights should be respected & protected by the county, not deliberately destroyed.

Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.
Colleen – There is no scientific consensus that fluoride is harmless.  In fact quite the opposite.I challenge the board of health to bear the burden of proof that consuming fluoride through the water supply is NOT harmful in any way.  This is a rhetorical challenge because it is impossible for your board of health to do it.  Even the promoters of fluoridation have admitted that drinking fluoride will inevitably cause some degree of dental fluorosis which is the outward manifestation of systemic overexposure.  This is well reported by the center for disease control.  Fluorosis shows up as white spotting & mottling of the dental enamel.  Therefore it can not be refuted that fluoride is detrimental & thus – does not comply with the precautionary principle & should not be a policy!
If dental fluorisis is not enough harm to satisfy you, then please consider these more recent studies which raise enormous doubts about the safety & efficacy of public water fluoridation:
Fluorid deposits in your pineal gland (melatonin center affecting sleep cycles): http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html
I appreciate your consideration to this critical public health issue & would like to offer my contact information if you have any questions or concerns about this inquiry.

 

 

Corey Sturmer
Colleen Bridger’s Response to Our Petitions; A Recommendation to Continue Drugging Orange County’s Water Supply

Good afternoon,

I wanted to share with you the information I sent the Board of County Commissioners regarding your concerns about the health effects of fluoride in municipal drinking water.  I’ve attached just a few of the documents I reviewed in making my recommendation for your information.  The key points from this review are:

1)      The preponderance of medical and dental organizations nationally and in North Carolina support community water fluoridation as safe and effective and

2)      Water fluoridation decisions are made by the entities that provide municipal water.  The largest municipal water supplier in Orange County is OWASA and they just this year voted to continue fluoridating their water.

Therefore my recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (and also my recommendation to the OWASA Board when they asked) is that they support the very important, safe and effective public health practice of fluoridating municipal water supplies.

Thank you so much for bringing this issue to our attention.  We can miss important health issues affecting our community and need active residents like you to make sure we are always staying on top of the myriad health threats that we face.  I will continue to monitor the emerging research on the health effects of fluoridating municipal drinking water and if I see any reason to revisit this recommendation, I assure you I absolutely will.

Sincerely,

Colleen Bridger, MPH, PhD

Orange County Health Director

Phone: 919.245.2412 / Cell: 919.612.2053

My Spoken Response to Colleen Bridger on October 7 2014

Letter attached to Colleen Bridger’s Reccomendation Authored by Gary Rozier, a semi-retired Public Health Professor @ UNC

GaryRozierGary Declines to do Interview about Public Water Fluoridation, despite authoring numerous letters in support of it

Dear Gary,

I was recently notified by the Orange County Health Director Colleen Bridger that she & the health department are publicly endorsing the idea of public water fluoridation in response to some recent petitions that the government stop this practice immediately.  After reviewing Colleen’s statement, she appears to be using the attached letter authored by you in 2012 together with several other stated endorsements from various organizations.

I am mailing you Gary because I gather from your letter that you are a highly educated & knowledgeable person on the various machinations & applications of governmental policy, which may result in a city applying a policy like water fluoridation to the population.  I also gather that you sincerely believe that this is an appropriate role for government to play, which is a legitimate position to have if you’re honest about it, which I gather you are being.

It is for these reasons I am interested in conducting an interview with you on the topic of health policy & public water fluoridation.  Would you be willing to participate?  This might be a good opportunity to illustrate to the public why public water fluoridation should be maintained – so I hope you will seize this opportunity.

Let me know your thoughts, & if you’re interested we can worry about logistics.

Corey

 

__________________________________

Corey,  Thank you for the opportunity to participate in a discussion about water fluoridation.  However, I am in phased retirement and not able to take on any engagements. Regards!  GaryRozier

__________________________________

Gary,

Thanks for the reply…

I find your statement interesting – generally most people I know who enter into full or even phased retirement, are able to find MORE time to take on different engagements. But I understand how freely discussing the realities of public water fluoridation may pose a liability to what appears to be your life’s work.  So one way or the other I get the message.Have a good retirement Gary,Corey

 

 

This is a general update & announcement for all readers of DurhamAgainstFluoride.com & in particular residents in the Triangle area of North Carolina.

Housekeeping

Due to time constraints & some new equipment invesments I will be moving this blog format to more of a V (video) LOG format.  I have procured some new broadcasting software & microphones which allows me to publish a much denser report in a much shorter period of time, than I have done in the past.  The events unfold too fast anyway for me to report on them in a timely manner, especially so since I don’t have a crew supporting me, so this will be I hope a more effective way to communicate.

The above video is one such example – but I am still learning so please forgive the lack of polish.  If you’d like to support us, click here.

Announcements

ORANGE COUNTY – 10/7/2014 7:00 PM- I will be appearing before the Orange County Comissioners @ 7PM with other activists in response to the Health Director’s Reccomendation that Orange County Continue Drugging the Population (Source)

CITY OF DURHAM – 10/9/2014 1:00 PM- I will be appearing @ 1:00PM to request that the city seek approval from the FDA that Hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe and effective when ingested for preventing tooth decay.

RequestToAppear

I cover both of these topics in much more detail in the video above.

If you plan to come, it would be nice to know in advance.  E-mail us.

 

On September 4, 2014 there were 4 petitions in the Orange County Comissioner’s inaugural meeting, against the government’s policy of drugging the water supply with hydrofluorosilicic acid.  This video which consists of 4 X 3 minute petitions can be seen below:

In response to our petitions, the commissioners forwarded our petition to the County Health Director, a woman named Colleen Bridger.  When I got wind of her reviewing the evidence, I submitted the following letter for her consideration:

Dear Colleen,

My name is Corey Sturmer & I am a 25 year resident of the triangle.  In 2011 I became aware that the city governments of Wake, Durham & Orange county have had a more than 60 year long policy of purchasing waste chemicals (hydrofluorosilicic acid/ silicofluorides, fluorosilicic acid) from fertilizer & aluminum industry & distributing it to the citizens through their water supply, ostensibly to help “prevent tooth decay.”

I happen to know that the propaganda surrounding its efficacy as a preventative health measure came directly from the health & human services department of our federal government, and secondarily through the public health departments of the respective states…Then on downward to each county.  Generally speaking the states’ position has amazingly not changed much in the last 60 years, despite all of the evidence which has come out on the practice since it was first instituted in the late 1950’s.

I was present earlier this month before the board of commissioners of orange county to provide a common sense approach to why this policy should be reversed IMMEDIATELY.  I am e-mailing you because I understand this issue has now been brought to your attention by the commissioners & they are waiting for some advisement from you & the board of health of orange county. 

So I would like you to please consider the following as common sense reasons why this policy should end.

Civil Liberty, Informed Consent, Lack of Licensure

Nobody in the history of public water fluoridation has ever debated the fact that the alleged purpose of the policy is to help prevent tooth decay.

According to the Federal Drug Administration’s code section 201(g)1, definition of a drug, a drug is defined by its INTENDED APPLICATION

Source: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/fdcactchaptersiandiishorttitleanddefinitions/ucm086297.htm

(g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

If the county wants to apply fluoride to the water for the purposes of preventing tooth decay, then they are legally bound to have it approved by the FDA as being safe and effective for such an application.  Please take notice that Fluoride has NEVER BEEN APPROVED by the FDA: http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/not-approved/
Since it is impossible for any being to deny that fluoridation is de facto drugging of the water supply, we then need to consider what North Carolina general statutes say about distributing (unapproved) drugs without a license.  It is in fact a Class H Felony to do so, which would mean the offending parties in Orange county are guilty of violating North Carolina state drug laws.

See: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_106/GS_106-145.6.pdf

G.S. 106-145.6
§ 106-145.6. Denial, revocation, and suspension of license; penalties for violations.
Adverse Action.
The Commissioner may deny a license to an applicant if the Commissioner determines that granting the applicant a license would not be in the public interest. Public interest considerations shall be limited to factors and qualifications that are directly related to the protection of public health and safety. The Commissioner may deny, suspend, or revoke a license for substantial or repeated violations
of this Article or for conviction of a violation of any other federal, state, or local prescription drug law or regulation. Chapter 150B of the General Statutes governs the denial, suspension, or revocation of a license under this Article.
(b)
Criminal Sanctions.
It is unlawful to engage in wholesale distribution in this State without a wholesale distributor license or to violate any other provision of this Article. A person who violates this Article commits a Class H felony. A fine imposed for a violation of this Article may not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).

Lastly – drugging the water supply in such a manner violates informed consent laws, which require the patient to be informed & to give their explicit consent before accepting a medical treatment like fluoride.  It may also violate certain individual’s freedom of religious expression since some religions forbid consumption of toxins such as fluoride.  If they don’t even know fluoride is added to their water they could be unwittingly committing blaspheme!  

These basic rights should be respected & protected by the county, not deliberately destroyed.

Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.

Colleen – There is no scientific consensus that fluoride is harmless.  In fact quite the opposite.

I challenge the board of health to bear the burden of proof that consuming fluoride through the water supply is NOT harmful in any way.  This is a rhetorical challenge because it is impossible for your board of health to do it.  Even the promoters of fluoridation have admitted that drinking fluoride will inevitably cause some degree of dental fluorosis which is the outward manifestation of systemic overexposure.  This is well reported by the center for disease control.  Fluorosis shows up as white spotting & mottling of the dental enamel.  Therefore it can not be refuted that fluoride is detrimental & thus – does not comply with the precautionary principle & should not be a policy!

If dental fluorisis is not enough harm to satisfy you, then please consider these more recent studies which raise enormous doubts about the safety & efficacy of public water fluoridation:

Fluorid deposits in your pineal gland (melatonin center affecting sleep cycles): http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

I appreciate your consideration to this critical public health issue & would like to offer my contact information if you have any questions or concerns about this inquiry.

Corey Sturmer

Her response, after alleged careful deliberation, is as folllows:

Good afternoon,

I wanted to share with you the information I sent the Board of County Commissioners regarding your concerns about the health effects of fluoride in municipal drinking water.  I’ve attached just a few of the documents I reviewed in making my recommendation for your information.  The key points from this review are:

1)      The preponderance of medical and dental organizations nationally and in North Carolina support community water fluoridation as safe and effective and

2)      Water fluoridation decisions are made by the entities that provide municipal water.  The largest municipal water supplier in Orange County is OWASA and they just this year voted to continue fluoridating their water. 

Therefore my recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (and also my recommendation to the OWASA Board when they asked) is that they support the very important, safe and effective public health practice of fluoridating municipal water supplies. 

Thank you so much for bringing this issue to our attention.  We can miss important health issues affecting our community and need active residents like you to make sure we are always staying on top of the myriad health threats that we face.  I will continue to monitor the emerging research on the health effects of fluoridating municipal drinking water and if I see any reason to revisit this recommendation, I assure you I absolutely will. 

Sincerely,

Colleen Bridger, MPH, PhD

Orange County Health Director

Phone: 919.245.2412 / Cell: 919.612.2053

September 14, 2014

Part I:

During the 5th Annual Citizen’s Conference on Fluoride  I was fortunate enough to get an exclusive 45 minute discussion with world renowned risk assessor & decades long anti-fluoride activist Dr. William (Bill) Hirzy Ph.D. Hirzy is well known in the anti-fluoride circles thanks to his keystone contributions as a whistleblower from within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters.

Hirzy’s most famous contributions to the anti-fluoride movement came when he was acting as senior vice president of the EPA union of scientists and professionals.

According to Hirzy this union was initially organized to protect EPA staff members from unethical pressure by EPA management. In other words – let them do their jobs as risk assessors, etc. properly! They later became aware of the risks of public water fluoridation & began working within the EPA to try & do something about it.

Dr. William Hirzy Former Risk Assessor at the Environmental Protection Agency

Sad to say that such a union would even be necessary in a government agency who makes such bogus & impossible claims that they protect human health & the environment, but unethical pressure from high ranking bureaucrats is no big surprise to us is it? The union, with Hirzy as spokesman, earlier this century appealed to a Senate subcommittee on the reality of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity & its many other latent adverse health effects, which are negatively affecting the entire daydreaming American public as a result of the government’s 60 year old public water fluoridation policy. Dr. Hirzy’s role as risk assessor, is ostensibly to warn the government of possible financial or criminal risk by evaluating certain policies – yet his advices heretofore have fallen on deaf ears! See Hirzy’s powerful statement below, from the Year 2000:

It is the EPA union’s collective testimony combined with the 2006 National Research Council’s 400+ page report on Fluoridated drinking water which makes the government’s continued inaction on this issue now irrevocably criminally negligent.

As you hear Dr. Hirzy explain his role as risk assessor, we can easily extrapolate that this union behaved almost like an immune system antibody, deployed within an otherwise healthy system to identify & defend against foreign invaders (unethical pressure aka corruption). That would be the traditional roles of each group anyway, if we believe that the EPA was formed to legitimately protect the environment. But what we see over time is an increasingly politicized federal agency, easily manipulated by rank, paygrades & external organizations, constructed hierarchically with a lack of traditional checks and balances . This has obviously motivated the white hats, who actually wish to perform a legitimate civic duty, to organize to better resist the embedded junta bureaucrats.

In America this Union concept can be considered the “check” on power. What we discover through Bill’s testimony however is that the system itself was corrupt & consequently the tables turned! It was the union who was treated like a virus infecting the EPA with truth & Dr. Hirzy walks us through many of the dirty tricks, administrative shifts & railroading attempts to prevent the truth from getting out. Although a valiant effort, the organization was proven not strong enough as we listen to Dr. Hirzy tacitly admit that it only took veto action by an ever changing & growing administrative landscape within the EPA to thwart the Union, which brings us to where we are today – the same place we were 50 years ago after fluoride was successfully implemented in the first place!

This interview however strays far from the minutia of fluoride politics & instead takes on a more personal character as Bill walks us through his own life experiences waking up to the fluoride deception while embedded within big corporate & governmental giants like Monsanto and the EPA. Unbeknownst to me, Dr. Hirzy had previously been arrested for protesting the construction of nuclear power plants in the midwest. This led not only to his ousting from Monsanto & his eventual hiring at the EPA, but the now famous theoretical physicist Michio Kaku had interestingly come to his defense at this time in the 80’s.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is the clear bias Bill describes within the bureaucracy of the EPA, contrasting it with his experiences at Monsanto which would on occasion express the same pattern of promoting & rewarding those who maintain the status quo while shunning those who challenge it. Bill seems to have had a lifetime of struggles due to his predisposition to tell the truth.

It is especially interesting that Bill’s specialty is in risk assessment which is to determine the amount of financial risk a corporate or governmental entity is exposing themselves to by selling or promoting a particular product/policy. This has obvious implications for Monsanto who’s chemical & genetic productions have the potential for vast profits, accompanied by serious financial risk should a product have an unintended detrimental health effect. Big institutions pay Big money for Bill’s intelligence because the cost of his salary pales in comparison to the potential lawsuits they might otherwise be exposed to.

But the nature of Bill’s work from the perspective of the EPA is even more damning of the EPA as an institution, than compared to a profit driven company like Monsanto, given their charter to actually PROTECT human helath & the environment, accompanied by the fiat regulatory power it is able to wield.

One should definitely question the true motives of said agency when someone like Bill, who is trying to save the EPA’s ass as much as he is trying to alert the public, gets completely ignored.

Hence the EPA have, for more than 10 years now, become criminally negligent by refusing to change the maximum allowable contamination level of water supplies with respect to fluoride, which consequently allows the various agencies under the EPA (Health & Human Services, Water Companies, City Councils, Health Boards, etc) to continue adding toxic waste to the public drinking water without criminal or federal legal repercussions.

Actually this was the essence of the 5th annual citizen’s conference on fluoride which culminated in an official petition to the EPA to answer an amalgamation of groundbreaking fluoride science which was presented to them by Dr. Hirzy & an army of other scientists, medical professionals & concerned citizens.

To understand the gravity of Bill Hirzy’s testimony on the dangers of fluoridation and the dark political manifestations which maintain the policy, one first has to fully grasp the true melange of federal, state & local bureaucracies who stand in the way of common sense, civil rights & the science. Given my own personal experience trying to enlighten local politicians on the

The multi-headed hydra that is big government

dangers we face, and thus end fluoridation, I will attempt to break it down as best as I understand it so that you may comprehend what a monumental task it is just to overcome the bureaucracy & generational indoctrination.

By the end, you may agree that the only way to kill this hydra is to make sure we get all the heads.

  1. First – the buck stops with your local city council. Like it or not ultimately the politicians who hold positions there have seized power & are the ones administering fluoride to the population by way of majority vote. Thus – they have the power to end it. But if you challenge them, they will defer to the water management department or some similar agency who is tasked with repeating propaganda hatched by Edward Bernays & the former Federal Security Agency; now known as the Department of Health and Human Services
  2. The water company will claim that they are only following orders from the state department of health and human services, who in the 20th century were the unapologetic propagandists promoting the mass fluoridation policy in the first place & still claim that it is one of the top 10 public health achievements of the last 100 years. They will deny they are violating any laws because they are not over 4 parts per million, EPA’s maximum contaminate level for that substance set originally in the ironically named “Safe Drinking Water Act
  3. If you challenge them on the basis that this constitutes forced medication of the drinking water, they claim it is not a drug, it is a mineral/nutrient & they are only “adjusting” the levels to one that is “optimal” for preventing tooth decay. This is based on the junk science produced in the 1930’s which was funded by the aluminum industry to promote fluoridation.
  4. Depending on your geography, the actual levels of fluoride in the groundwater might be quite low, which provides the impetus for city councils to perform a public service by “bringing up” the concentration level of fluoride to one that the public health department claims is “Optimal” for preventing tooth decay. Luckily, there is a long line of fertilizer & aluminum companies who have excess fluoride they need to dispose of. This is how they get away with adding fluoride while simultaneously not taking accountability for the fact that it is adding for medicinal / preventative purposes
  5. When you challenge the public health board that this is illegal & a crime given all science showing such, they will say they are regulated by the EPA’s 4.0ppm Maximum Allowable Contaminant Level & since they are only fluoridating at .7-1.1ppm, no crime committed!
  6. Rinse, Repeat.

Part II:

When asked what is driving these deliberate obfuscations of the truth by the various corporate & governmental structures, Bill responded, “I don’t go there.”

For More Real News for Real People visit: http://www.bullcitybulletin.com

September 8, 2014

www.bullcitybulletin.com

At the 5th annual citizen’s conference on Fluoride (see: http://www.fluoridealert.org), Eric interviews Henry Lickers regarding the impact of fluoridation on his Native American community, which serves almost as a microcosm of what is now unfolding on a larger scale within American society.

Thanks to the deleterious fluoridation of their land & people by way of nearby Reynold’s Aluminum plants, Henry’s traditionally agricultural society collapsed due the cascading effects caused by its adverse health effects.

First, the live stock experienced crippling skeletal fluorosis which left some unable to do more than crawl on their knees. Their people relied greatly on the natural resources which were unsustainable due to dumping of fluoride in the area.

The population also suffered from a broad, average shift downward in the collective IQ level since fluoridation bio-accumulates & happens to be a human neurotoxin. This lead to a doubling of the number of mentally handicapped dependents & a halving of the number of geniuses present in their community.

These growth stunting factors eventually manifested in a decimated economic situation, which was only exacerbated by the import of crime & ‘black market economies.’

When the situation reached a peak in 1990, devolving into a civil war the government responded by deploying paramilitary police, army, etc since then spending more than 7 billion taxpayer dollars setting up a gulag police state to maintain “law & order.” When pressed on the issue, Reynold’s representatives allegedly blamed the situation on the indigenous being “poor farm managers.” Ironically these people had been farmers for more than 1,200 years.

For the past 29 years, Henry Lickers, of Cornwall, has been Director of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne Department of the Environment. Mr. Lickers has served as Co-Chair of the COSEWIC Aboriginal Subcommittee, Scientific Co-Chair with the Haudenosaunee Environmental Taskforce, Vice President and Board Director of the St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences and the Eastern Ontario Model Forest. He has also served as member of Environment Canada’s Science and Technology Advisory Council, the International Joint Commission Science Advisory Board and the Panel on Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks.

Support Henry: http://hetf.org/index.php/hetf-co-chairs/henry-lickers

Support Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridealert.org

For more Real News for Real People, visit:

http://www.bullcitybulletin.com