Posts Tagged ‘citizen’

See Also: My letter to the Trump Administration Re: EPAs Involvement in Water Fluoridation

By Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation.

We believe this lawsuit is an unprecedented opportunity to end the practice once and for all in the U.S., and potentially throughout the world, based on the well-documented neurotoxicity of fluoride. You may read the official complaint here. According to FAN’s attorney and adviser, Michael Connett:

“This case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’ — meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment.”

Industry, legal and environmental observers following the EPA’s implementation of the new TSCA law have pointed out that a lawsuit1challenging the EPA’s denial of our petition would provide a test case for the agency’s interpretation that petitioners must provide a comprehensive analysis of all uses of a chemical in order to seek a restriction on a particular use.

Legal experts have suggested the EPA’s interpretation essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21 petitions impossible to meet, making the outcome significant for all U.S. residents and public health or environmental watchdog groups.

Lawsuit Background: EPA Served With Citizen’s Petition

On November 22, 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The petition includes more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health.The full petition can be accessed here, a shorter eight-page summary here and our press release here.

We presented the FDA with a large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S. children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the agency with evidence showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed and, accordingly, any risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary.

We believe an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk. On February 27, 2017, the EPA published their response.2 In their decision, the EPA claimed:

“The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”

As many independent scientists now recognize, fluoride is a neurotoxin.3 The question, therefore, is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what dose. While EPA quibbles with the methodology of some of these studies, to dismiss and ignore these studies in their entirety for methodological imperfections is exceptionally cavalier, particularly given the consistency of the findings and the razor-thin margin between the doses causing harm in these studies and the doses that millions of Americans now receive.

EPA’s own Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlights the importance of having a robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive. FAN presented the EPA with over 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g., reduced IQ), pointing out that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American children now receive.

Typically, this would be a cause for major concern. But, unfortunately, the EPA has consistently shied away from applying the normal rules of risk assessment to fluoride — and it has unfortunately continued that tradition with its dismissal of our petition.

Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides citizens with the ability to challenge an EPA denial in federal court. For too long, EPA has let politics trump science on the fluoride issue (see examples). FAN welcomes having these issues considered by a federal court, where scientific evidence has a better chance of being weighed objectively.

To accompany our lawsuit, FAN is offering a new DVD and a comprehensive campaign flash drive package. The DVD features the video, “Fluoride and the Brain,” in which Michael Connett explains that fluoride’s ability to lower IQ in children is just the tip of an iceberg of over 300 animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic.

We have also made a comprehensive collection of campaign and educational videos available on a single flash drive for a limited time. It also includes our EPA petition and supporting documentation. This is a must-have for every fluoride-free campaigner’s toolkit.4  Another must-have is the book “The Case Against Fluoride,” by environmental chemist and toxicologist Paul Connett, Ph.D., which contains a comprehensive science-based argument for the end to artificial water fluoridation.

Winning this lawsuit will require a full team effort, and we want you to feel a part of that team and a part of this moment in history. Please consider playing a larger role in this potentially fluoridation-ending lawsuit by making a tax-deductible contribution.

New Study Quantifies Fluoride’s Potential to Lower IQ in Children

Since submitting our citizen’s petition to the EPA, we have learned even more about the threat to the next generation. Some children in the U.S. may be consuming enough fluoridated water to reach doses of fluoride that have the potential to lower their IQ, according to a research team headed by William Hirzy, Ph.D., a former senior scientist at the EPA who specialized in risk assessment and published an important risk analysis in the journal Fluoride last year.5

Current federal guidelines encourage the addition of fluoride chemicals into water supplies to reach 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Hirzy followed EPA risk assessment guidelines to report: “The effect of fluoride on IQ is quite large, with a predicted mean 5 IQ point loss when going from a dose of 0.5 mg/F/day to 2.0 mg F/day.”

Many children in the U.S. commonly consume these levels of fluoride within this range from all sources (i.e., water, food, dental products, medicines and air pollution). Hirzy explains the significance of this study:

“The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride. Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.

One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day. Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe.”

Dr. Bill Osmunson, FAN’s interim director, noted that this risk analysis adds further weight to the petition submitted to the EPA by FAN and other groups in November to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals to drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act.

FAN’s Persistence Pays Off: US Government Funding Neurotoxicity Studies

FAN progress isn’t limited to the legal world. Our relentless effort to get the U.S. government to take fluoride’s neurotoxicity seriously is also beginning to pay off in other ways. For many years, American regulatory and research agencies have failed to finance studies seeking to reproduce the many studies undertaken abroad that have found harm to the brain (over 300).

When toxicologist and pharmacologist Phyllis Mullenix, et al., published their groundbreaking animal study6 on fluoride and animal behavior in 1995, she was fired from her position as chair of the toxicology department at the Forsythe Dental Center. That sent a chilling message to U.S. researchers — research on fluoride toxicity is a “no-go” area. But that is changing. Now, with the U.S. government funding several important toxicology studies, this should encourage other Western researchers to get involved:

There is a new National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded fluoride/brain study.7 Our Canadian friends are extremely excited by this research funding to Christine Till and Ashley Malin, the co-authors of the important study that found a correlation between fluoridation and increased ADHD rates in the U.S.8 This could definitely be one of the most important developments in water fluoridation to date.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is in the process of completing a rodent study using low levels of fluoride exposure. However, we have concerns over the consultation process NTP had prior to when this study was undertaken (see “Vigilance Still Needed” at end of this article).

Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Harvard School of Public Health, is leading an ongoing study of fluoride and intelligence among a group of schoolchildren in China. Grandjean published the preliminary results of this study in the January-February 2015 issue of Neurotoxicology & Teratology.9

A National Institute of Environmental Health (NIEHS)-funded human epidemiological study titled “Prenatal and Childhood Exposure to Fluoride and Neurodevelopment” is investigating the relationship between fluoride and IQ among a cohort of children in Mexico. A summary of the study10 is available online.

An NIEHS-funded animal study, “Effects of Fluoride on Behavior in Genetically Diverse Mouse Models,” is investigating fluoride’s effects on behavior and whether these effects differ based on the genetic strain of the mouse. The principal investigator of the study is Dr. Pamela Den Besten. A summary of her study11 is available online.

The NIH is funding a study investigating the impact of fluoride on the timing of puberty among children in Mexico. This study is pertinent to the assessment of fluoride’s impact on the pineal gland’s regulation of melatonin. The preliminary results of the study were presented at the 2014 Independent School Entrance Examination ISEE conference and can be accessed online.12

Though not funded by the U.S. government, Jaqueline Calderón Hernandez, Ph.D., Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico, is currently working with Diana Rocha-Amador, Ph.D., on three studies on fluoride neurotoxicity:

1.An examination of the cognitive effects from fluoride in drinking water

2.Estimating the global burden of disease of mild mental retardation associated with environmental fluoride exposure

3.Investigating the impact of in utero exposure to fluoride (via drinking water) on cognitive development delay in children

Rocha-Amador is also examining the impact of fluoride on thyroid hormone levels in pregnant women, and published a fluoride/IQ study in 2007.13

Vigilance Still Needed

We still have to be vigilant to make sure that those determined to protect the fluoridation program don’t skew the results. For example, it is worrying that the NTP specified that an animal study should be conducted at 0.7 ppm — which is a ridiculous provision for an animal study on fluoride. For example, it is well-known that rats need a much higher dose of fluoride in their water to reach the same plasma levels in humans.

Moreover, it is standard practice in toxicology to use much higher doses in animals to tease out effects. To conduct experiments on animals at expected human doses would require a huge number of animals, which would be cost prohibitive. These studies also raise a significant question for those who continue to promote fluoridation in local communities and legislatures around the world.

“What primary scientific studies (not bogus reviews conducted by pro-fluoridation agencies) can you cite that give you the confidence to ignore or dismiss the evidence that fluoride damages the brain as documented in over 300 animal and human studies (including 50 IQ studies)?”

As shown by its support for these new neurotoxicity studies, our own government has acknowledged the risk fluoride poses to our children. If proponents cannot provide an adequate scientific answer to this question, then fluoridation should be halted immediately, and should under no circumstances be initiated.

National Fluoridation Stats Show Tipping Point Has Been Reached

Progress is also being made on the political front. U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) fluoridation statistics for the U.S. have been released for 2014,14 and they show exactly why the fluoridation lobby has been pouring more money and resources into promoting the practice and fighting our efforts: WE ARE WINNING!

For the first time in nearly 40 years, the percentage of the U.S. population served by community water systems receiving fluoridated water decreased, from 74.6 percent to 74.4 percent. The percentage of the U.S. population receiving optimally fluoridated water (natural and artificial) also decreased, from 67.1 percent to 66.3 percent. Also decreasing:

  • The number of water systems providing fluoridated water (natural or artificial)
  • The number of water systems adding fluoride
  • The number of water systems providing naturally “optimal fluoride” levels

Momentum Continues to Build Thanks to Citizens Like You

More than 460 communities throughout the world have ended existing fluoridation programs or rejected new efforts to fluoridate either by council vote or citizen referendum since 1990. Since January 2016 alone, we’ve confirmed that at least 33 communities with nearly a million collective residents voted to end fluoridation, bringing the number of victories since 2010 to at least 225 communities,15 representing approximately 6.5 million people.

Most of these victories were the result of citizens organizing local campaigns and voicing their opposition to public officials, with many working in coordination with FAN or using our materials to educate their neighbors and local decision makers about the serious health risks associated with the practice. Some of the latest victories in the U.S. and abroad include:16

Advertisements

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

 

 

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

One of the most prominent Nazis, a man who helped organize the logistics for mass deportation of millions of Jews right into internment & extermination camps during the Holocaust, once stated in defense of these obvious war crimes that he could not accept a guilty charge…why?:

It was my misfortune to become entangled in these atrocities. But these misdeeds did not happen according to my wishes. It was not my wish to slay people. . . . Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations of war service and my oath of allegiance and my oath of office, and in addition, once the war started, there was also martial law. . . . I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did. . . . At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate.

-Adolf Eichmann defending his systematic genocide during his 1961 war crimes trial

In a nutshell Adolf refused to hold himself accountable & asked society to do likewise because he was simply “doing his job.”  As his subsequent execution demonstrates, “following orders” is not an adequate defense in a logical & ethically consistent society.

It is not my intention to draw any parallels between the scale of atrocities committed under Nazi Eichmann to the issue of “community water fluoridation,” but I raise this significant historical reference to help illustrate the fact that doing Wrong despite common sense, using your employment as a shield to deflect persecution, is not an adequate defense & deserves punishment.  I only wanted to preface this special report with a bold example of this very same mental disease which I have come to realize is endemic in corporate government, and in fact here in Durham North Carolina.

In this spirit I present this exclusive hidden-camera footage of Durham resident & incredibly talented sculptor, Robert Mihaly, who is depicted below filing an assault & battery charge against Tom Harden at a police substation for fluoridating the public drinking water.

If that name does not ring a bell, Tom Harden is the unassuming Superintendent of Williams Water Treatment Plant, also known as the one individual most responsible for the actual fluoridation of our water in Durham County.

Part I

Sure Tom Harden is a nice fellow & simply doing his job. But in all truth it is by Tom’s hands, and his hands alone, that the toxic waste Hydrofluorosilicic Acid  is deliberately added to Durham’s drinking water.

He chooses to do it.

The most tragic reality is that Tom would be the first to tell you that he simply does as City Council orders him to do.  I know as a matter of personal experience because Tom said almost exactly this off camera when he was kind enough to give me a tour of the water plant in 2013…

But is “just doing your job” good enough? 

  • If I were to add rophenol to a female’s drink at the bar, I could go to jail for a number of different assault charges.
  • If I were a doctor & I administered medicine without informing the patient I could lose my license and/or face legal action.
  • If I inject someone with a vaccine against their consent I could be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon
  • But…If I get paid by Durham City Council to drug the water supply, that is not only allowed but somehow ethical?

Basic, elementary ethics dictate that drugging anyone against their consent & without their foreknowledge is completely wrong, no matter who is giving the orders or who is doing the deed.  Not only is community water fluoridation self evidently unethical but it also happens to be illegal under North Carolina general statutes & FDA drug laws. As we have discussed many times, it is being administered as a preventative medicine in a blanket manner through the water supply, without full disclosure or prescription & according to NC G.S. § 90-18 the CITY OF DURHAM is in direct violation of practicing medicine without a license.

This is just a stunt!

Is it?

Since the powers that be fully rolled out the national fluoridation program in the late 1950’s, a plumb 70% of American counties now add some form of fluoride to their public drinking water supplies.  For North Carolinians that percentage is more like 85% +.    In Durham County, the form of fluoride used is Hydrofluorosilicic Acid which is extracted from the wet pollution scrubbers at fertilizer mines owned by a company called MOSAIC.  This is tacitly admitted on Durham’s website!!

A little more digging gets you the material safety data sheet, from which any competent high-schooler could glean that this is not a safe material to drink.

The motivations behind such a devastating rape of a public resource as inherently ours as the air we breath, will be speculated & pondered upon for eons into the future. However valid postulating about the conspiracy might be, what is more prudent to do at this particular juncture, is to admit fully to ourselves that we already lost the hearts & minds, so we can go on changing them.

Once that reality sets in, you have to act. 

I get e-mails all the time from readers who want guidance on how they can get fluoride removed in their area.  I am flattered some readers believe I have a silver bullet but if success is measured by whether your city still fluoridates the water or not, I am a complete failure!   I am always happy to give advice & share what I have learned in this experience but the 2014 reality is that despite all of my efforts since 2011, Durham has so far successfully passed the fluoride hot-potato in such a manner as to deny wrong doing, avoid prosecution,  – AND – continue fluoridating the water!

What I have learned & what I hope this video will demonstrate is that all that is required, is for each person to do something.  Follow through.  Whatever it is – it could be a conversation, an e-mail, a donation.  It doesn’t matter.

For those who want change; it is up to each and every single one of us, independently from one another, to listen to our soul & decide what it is we are inspired to do…Then to just do it! 

Part II

Want to follow up on the police report?

Call Durham County Record’s Office to get a Copy of the latest report: (919) 560-4423

Call Durham’s Non-Emergency Line & ask for the status of the report using ref. # 14-007642: (919) 560-4600

BoTaylorPoliceReport