Posts Tagged ‘county’

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

 

 

Advertisements

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

Source: NSNBC International

Jane Nielson, Ph.D (nsnbc) : Steering Committee Member, Sonoma County Water Coalition Board member, Open-space, Water, and Land Preservation Foundation (O.W.L.) I was in the middle of my education as a scientist when I first encountered the fluoridation controversy. I was getting a Masters in Geochemistry from the University of Michigan, and I attended a heated City Council meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona. By the end of that meeting I was convinced opponents of water fluoridation were conspiracy-minded loonies.

For decades I never thought much about fluoridation. I believed the doctors who said fluoride prevented tooth decay, so I gave my two children fluoride drops when they were infants. It wasn’t until the Sonoma County Water Coalition hosted a debate in 2009 that I became aware of different information about water fluoridation. Like that memorable Flagstaff meeting, I thought I’d hear “science” from supporters and “crazy stuff” from opponents. But neither side presented any science at all.

What the Studies Show

Exasperated, I started researching for myself. This was familiar terrain: I had published many papers, so I know what it takes to prove a point

Dental Fluorosis

Dental Fluorosis

scientifically, and the data required to get a paper published. I had performed analyses, plotted data and defended my research and interpretations in public forums. I quickly found World Heath Organization data that stunned me:

  • Tooth decay has plummeted in developed countries worldwide, regardless of fluoridation.
  • Cavity rates are the same — or even lower – in many non-fluoridated countries compared to the U.S.
  • The one clear correlation with water fluoridation is disfiguring “dental fluorosis” (supposedly only a cosmetic problem.)

I then proceeded to review a range of scientific papers, including all the most recent research on actual and potential effects of water fluoridation. In study after study I found that differences in tooth decay rates between areas that have fluoridated water supplies for decades, and those that either never fluoridated or stopped fluoridating, were minimal to nonexistent.

Key U.S. studies confirm that ingesting fluoride does not prevent tooth decay:

  • 1990 National Institute of Dental Research Survey: One of the largest U.S. surveys of tooth decay found no significant difference in tooth decay (less than ½ of 1% of the 128 tooth surfaces in the mouth ) between fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations.
  • Several modern U.S. Studies (1997-2001): Tooth decay did not go up when fluoridation was stopped.
  • The 2009 National Institutes of Health-funded “Iowa Study”: Cavity levels the same regardless of whether children ingested fluoride or not.

Apply It or Swallow It?

In recent years the differentiation between swallowing fluoride and coating teeth with it has become lost in the discussion. But this differentiation is essential. The overwhelming consensus among scientists, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Research Council, is that fluoride works when it’s applied to the tooth surface, NOT when it’s swallowed.

Sonoma County Has provided No Scientific Support for Fluoridation

In 2013, County Health officials provided the Sonoma County Water Coalition with a single study in support of fluoridation by Australian scientists who reviewed worldwide fluoridation studies written in English. But that study is flawed because it failed to compare fluoridated versus non-fluoridated populations, lacked a cavity prevention assessment, and showed an extremely weak correlation insufficient to prove cause-and-effect. Thus far the County has not offered any more definitive data to support its campaign.

How Did the U.S. Get Sold on Water Fluoridation?

In analyzing early research, it’s clear that the U.S. promoted the spread of water fluoridation before completing definitive studies. I’ve met with this practice of promoting innovations that later prove to have negative public health impacts over and over again in< my scientific career. After the debate, I realized that without solid science to back it up, fluoridation could well represent the same dynamic. And now, having examined the research myself, I’ve concluded that water fluoridation is indeed an echo of past mistakes. Improving children’s dental health is a worthy goal. But before Sonoma County considers water fluoridation, the public must demand the County first prove that it works.

Jane Nielson, Ph.D

Submitted By: Parker Emmerson

CITIZENS AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION LETTER NUMBER ONE

Dear Town Council Members, OWASA, The Board of Aldermen and Citizens of Orange County, NC,

Parker Emmerson

Parker Emmerson

I hope all is well with you.

I am writing to notify you that there is a toxic, hazardous substance currently added to the Orange County water supply. This substance is fluoride. After repeated inquiries into this matter with the OWASA board members, we have still not been told what kind of fluoride is added to the water. My peers who oppose the addition of the level 3 or 4 health hazard toxin known as fluoride suspect that the kind of fluoride currently added to the water is fluorosilic acid and that, when this kind of fluoride hits one’s stomach acid, it transforms into Hydrogen Fluoride, a level four (4) health hazard as rated by the NFPA fire diamonds seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fluoride

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704 (Key to reading NFPA fire diamonds)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride (Level 3 Health Hazard, Toxic, Irritant)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid (Level 3 Health Hazard, Toxic, Corrosive)

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924083 (Level 3 Health Hazard)

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+16961-83-4 (Level 4 Health Hazard)

Fluosilicic Acid: “Agent in water fluoridation, in preliminary treatment of hides and skins, and to reduce reflectivity in glass surfaces; disinfectant for copper and brass vessels; impregnating ingredient to preserve wood and to harden masonary; chem intermediate for aluminum trifluoride, cryolite, and fluorsilicates; electroplating agent for chromium.

Furthermore, Sodium fluoride pills are a prescription drug with NDC (National Drug Code) # 0288-1106-10 and NDC # 68032-382-12 (to name just two) – their primary purpose to deliver fluoride (fluorine) to the teeth through what I consider the pseudo-science of its being beneficial when contained in the saliva and “bathing the teeth” in fluoride continuously throughout the day. At least ten different citizens have challenged the OWASA board’s continued addition of fluoride (a by-product of the aluminum and fertilizer industries by their own admission on their website) with valid, cogent arguments against the addition of this drug into the water supply against their consent.

We got nowhere with the board.

Notably – the recently dismissed “State Dentist” Rebecca King (See:Tense meeting with DHHS leader Wos leads to firing of NC’s top dentist) – gave her “testimony” (“expert” opinion) on the subject in a meeting that was exempt from public comment, and she used a tactic coined by Orwell as “Double Speak” on more than one occasion.  She stated word for word, and I have this on record,

“Fluoride is not a by-product of the fertilizer industry. Fluoride comes from the same phosphate rock that is used to create fertilizer – it does not come from fertilizer.”

So, somehow these two things (phosphate mining and fertilizer production) are not correlated even though fluoride comes from the same phosphate rock used to produce fertilizer? If fluoride were not pumped into the public water supplies of practically every North Carolina township, what would the phosphate mining companies do with all of the fluoride?

They would have to pay to dispose of it as what it is – toxic waste, which they do not want to do.

We confronted the OWASA board about this specific inconsistency in the pro-fluoride argument (position), among many, many others (for emphasis), and each time, they denied it – repeatedly stating that the fluoride they used did not come from the fertilizer and aluminum industries, until finally – Corey Sturmer, an anti-fluoride activist brought out into the open a print out of their own website (water quality report card) that stated their source of fluoride was phosphate rock from byproducts of the fertilizer and aluminum industry.  See:

Finally, they were forced to have one of their operational employees come to the meeting and give a statement about how the fluoride they used actually did come from the by-products of a North Carolina phosphate rock-mining plant which supplied the fertilizer industry. We have all of these encounters on video.

This was just one example of misleading double-speak they used. They also denied direct response to our questions/points and neglected due diligence of researching the facts we presented to them. Otherwise, why would they have come to the decision to continue fluoridating the public water supply? We have them on record stating that it does not have a benefit to the safety of the water that so many people in this town drink.

They are not open about their actions, nor are they forthcoming with information that should be public.   For example, I have asked them numerous times if they use sodium fluoride or a kind of fluorosilic acid, and they have not told me which one they use. I have asked them to address what gives them the right to give out a drug to unwitting people when they are admittedly not health professionals. They are the ones who add fluoride to the water and set the quantity of fluoride added. What are they doing adding fluoride to the water when they are not health professionals? They are not elected, but rather are an ad hoc committee. This goes against the constitution of North Carolina.

I am writing to implore you to re-examine the policies of the OWASA board.

Think about these things, and ask yourself these questions:

  1. The supposed purpose of the water fluoridation is supposedly for hardening the enamel of the teeth through the saliva. Fluoride has an NDC # (National Drug Code Number). Is it ethical to give a drug to everyone – or put otherwise – to discriminate against those who would not like to take the drug fluoride by forcing them to obtain fresh water sources and denying them public water?
  2. If I drink one liter of OWASA water, I would be taking the equivalent of .7 mg of fluoride. If I were to drink to two liters of OWASA water, that means I would get 1.4 mgs of fluoride. The NDC # is relevant to doses of only .25 mg. per day. Think about that. This is huge over exposure if you are just drinking a regular amount of water. The board is drugging the population.
  3. Could the right to freedom of religion be violated by the addition of a toxin to the water supply? Muslims must use clean water, free of toxins for their prayers. Fluoride is a toxin and health hazard.
  4. How can one ethically put a substance in the public water supply that has been linked to decreased bone density and lowered IQ in a Harvard Medical Journal study: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
  5. Has OWASA exceeded their charter in attempting to forcibly (covertly) drug the entire population? YES! OWASA’s charter allows them to provide clean water, not give drugs to the general population.
  6. Fluoride pacifies people and makes them more complacent. This characteristic was used by Hitler, Stalin, and numerous other dictators to pacify the population and coerce them more easily into going along with totalitarian, facist ideologies. Why would we risk this in our own society by fluoridating the public?
  7. WATER FLUORIDATION WAS JUST BANNED BY THE COUNTRY OF ISRAEL, STOPPED IN PORTLAND, OREGON AND IS GAINING MOMENTUM AS AN ISSUE OPPOSED BY AN AWAKENED PUBLIC.

The reality is that there a growing number of concerned citizens believe or at least question not only the validity of fluoride science, but the ethicality, potential of severely harmful side effects (on the human body through accumulation in the environment and over exposure), and true purpose of water fluoridation. We stand against water fluoridation whole-heartedly and believe fluoride should be avoided.

All Our Best,

PARKER EMMERSON AND THE UNDERSIGNED ATTACHED

X__________________________________

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqQkqZKBuV4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMlwv1pBKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrovKbkEyIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTevKbkBzs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ8qzDLZTZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRsWFghoPXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYOllO4yM1o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFw5_9JdQ14

http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/9070

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFdwgpVCQQw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-0BhD6gebY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouNxYtCL32s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMlwv1pBKk

Preface

Charlee Eades was likely the only individual besides myself who was in attendance during the March 2013 Durham board of health hearing who was not paid or affiliated with the state and city government.  Therefore her eyewitness account to what happened that day remains crucial evidence as to  what deceptions & techniques were used by the government to disseminate false information among the Durham County Board of Health in order to mire their critical thinking and produce the current recommendation to continue drugging the City of Durham’s public drinking water.

Since she can not attend the city council work session tomorrow, where this fallacious recommendation will be officially rendered by Gayle Harris to the Durham City council, she has penned her own appeal, published below, and I will hand deliver it tomorrow.  It is an important and worthwhile account from a different perspective than my own which should be seriously considered when trying to understand how it is that the Powers That Be continue to indoctrinate the agents of our government to keep poisoning all of our public water resources.

My Appeal of the Board Of Health’s Recommendation to Continue Medicating Durham’s Water

Mr. Bell & Durham City Council members,

I am writing you because I am unable to attend Thursday’s public meeting due to work obligations, but want to issue my full support of the appeal of the Durham Public Health Board’s recommendation to continue the practice of water fluoridation.

I have personally attended numerous “DPHB” board meetings over the past year and the March 2013 Ad Hoc “expert panel review” where I witnessed an unfair and rather extreme bias towards pro-fluoridation. It is bothersome to me that my avenue to address what I consider to be a very serious health concern is handled with clear cognitive bias. As I am sure you are aware, this meeting was held with the pretense that no public comment would be allowed & if one was to speak out of turn, a police officer was positioned in the room to escort any such citizens out of the building. Video Evidence Below:

With the blatant and reprehensible threat to the First Amendment aside, I am writing specifically to make you aware that the panel of 5 experts in fields related to the fluoride issue (only 4 were present to comment) pledged, unabashedly, in favor of fluoridation.

Each of these experts were either employed by or provide direct consultation to the state of North Carolina and the City of Durham.  This is especially problematic because there was no one present or rather, no one present who was allowed to speak, that could provide an independent or alternative viewpoint, which at the very least, would tip this purported “review” out of the territory of being painfully biased.

Furthermore, panel expert Amy Keyworth, a Hydrogeologist, answered questions from the DPHB with research regarding water exclusively collected & studied for the NC Private Well Program.  I find this odd considering this is a public policy directly affecting the public water supply.  Why would statistics on the private well program illustrate any meaningful data for the DPHB to consider? The testimony delivered by Mrs. Keyworth is moot for it’s complete lack of relativity to the debate.  However, because no expert was present to debate and give credibility to the facts presented at this meeting, many opinions went unsubstantiated.

For example, in response to a question fielded by Board Member & Ad Hoc Committee Chair Dr. F. Vincent Allison, DDS regarding the form or source of fluoride used by Durham in its public water supply, Mrs. Keyworth stated clearly that naturally occurring “fluoride” was used. This is patently false and you must certainly agree as this information is sourced directly from Durham’s Department of Water Management. Durham actually purchases hydrofluorsilicic acid from PENCCO chemical company, and this is stated on your own website! More concerning was that seated beside Amy Keyworth was Vicki Westbrook, Assistant Director of Durham Water Management, who never corrected Amy’s fallacious statement. I would hope she knows the precise chemicals purchased with public money to use for public consumption, since it is a highly corrosive material requiring increased safety regulations, and especially given that Ms. Westbrook was present this day as an expert to clarify and verify matters regarding the Water treatment standards and procedures.

In the absence of facts, a citizen, Corey Sturmer, thought it was pertinent to correct Mrs. Keyworth as this is information critical to the DPHB in its review of the fluoridation policy which it intended to further recommend to the City Council.  Mr. Sturmer was met with several gavel knocks and a swift escort from the room & ultimately the building, for correcting an “expert” who was delivering obvious disinformation to the DPHB.

I remained in the room following this disturbing display of supremacy and was disappointed to see the deterioration of the discussion from science and ethics based to outright slander of so-called “alternative viewpoints” or as “expert” Dr. Rebecca King so eloquently put it “You know you can’t believe everything you read on the internet.”

If only I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that phrase to “debunk” or detract from a legitimate argument.

This poor attempt to dismiss all research hosted online, because it may serve to shape the debate against this policy, is a relic of the technologically illiterate. If we apply this sentiment evenly, then the information displayed on Durham’s own municipal or governmental sites could be deemed invalid as a proper source.

It is simply unacceptable that Durham believes a one-sided debate will deliver the satisfactory “due diligence” review, as announced by Mr. James Miller at the beginning of the panel, mind you only moments before telling everyone that those who “spoke out of turn” would be escorted away by a policeman, like a criminal.

This is not elementary school or reformatory school, this is my life and my body being discussed and I implore my elected and un-elected officials to take these matters seriously, not for themselves, but for the public good.

An appeal of the DPHB ‘s recommendation is necessary to ensure all relative viewpoints are represented and that all opinions are counter-weighted.   Two members of the panel were dentists with backgrounds in both pediatrics & public health, but no one was there to speak to the effects on the human body comprehensively. Is it not remiss to believe the fluoride we consume only touches our teeth before being swallowed- when it is in fact absorbed by your bones & organs?

Dr. Timothy Wright said that the Harvard studies showing a decrease in IQ among grade-school age children who ingested fluoride in China [Harvard, 2012] did not “pan out.” No specific reasons were ever stated as to why these studies failed to “pan out” but also no Board Member pushed Mr. Wright for clarification or more information whatsoever. The Harvard study was completely dismissed from that moment on, as were other studies that found negative side effects to water fluoridation. Those others, Wright vaguely said, “didn’t pan out” either.

I have to tell you that the reason I ultimately excused myself from this meeting was due to comments made by Dr. Rebecca King in response to a question from Dr. Nancy Short, DrPH, MBA, RN, on how to “Deal” with citizens who do not support the practice of medicating people against their will. Dr. King scoffed “Good Luck” and stated “these people will never be satisfied because they will always have something to complain about” and “bad information” from various “internet sources” to support it. King was dismissive of all information she deemed “alternative,” “independent,” or not in concurrence with the ADA, CDC or the NC Board of Public Health, despite never providing a specific “bad” source.  This sweeping disrespect of citizen’s who seek change in public health policy was so offensive to me that I left.

On top of demonstrating a clear cognitive bias towards the practice of fluoridating unsuspecting citizens, despite recent and developing research to the contrary, it is also important to highlight that the city has no issue stifling the public from voicing complaints, enforcing dejection from public meetings due to free speech no less and outright disrespect of its citizens with a “majority rule” mentality.

In all of the meetings that I have attended, never have I once witnessed a discussion about the cost of mass fluoridation compared to the cost of toothpaste and toothbrush for those in dire need. If money is to be spent, it should be spent wisely and with the health of the populace at the forefront of your minds. Durham City Council and the DPHB has displayed thus far a blatant disregard for all citizen complaints and has instead supported a biased review of the available information, all while failing to even discuss the financials.

I pledge support to Mr. Sturmer’s Appeal of the DPHB recommendation to continue this unethical practice. The Durham City Council has an obligation its to citizens to conduct sound & unbiased reviews of its practices and to ensure that such reviews are welcoming to public debate, as should be mandated.  It is simply impossible to condense an argument against a policy of this nature and magnitude into 3 minutes for you, our civil servants, to digest and scrutinize. What a shame it would be in years to come to find out that the IQs of the children in Durham have decreased just as those in China and could have been avoided had fluoride been applied only topically, as it is intended, and not via the public water supply. Will you think back to the pesky citizens who warned you and wonder why did we not avoid it all together? That’s only a hypothetical though- what about for all of the mothers who use Durham’s water to mix with their baby’s formula? Should they not at the very least be warned that the CDC has found the levels of “optimal” fluoride currently maintained in Durham will directly increase the child’s risk of dental fluorosis (mottling of tooth enamel)? This information could have been communicated to the Durham Public Health Board during its review of the practice had they allowed citizens to speak without fear of dejection by an officer of the law.

I thank you for your time and for your consideration to this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

Charlee G. Eades

In response to the building momentum behind the Durham/Raleigh/Chapel Hill anti-fluoride movement, InfoWars Nightly News recently interviewed Marcus Hill and Katie Habberman on their efforts to protest the mass poisoning of citizens via community water fluoridation.  Using new facebookesque patriot-targeted social media technology known as Planet InfoWars, the duo created Greater Raleigh Resistance, a group dedicated to resisting all manner of tyranny here in the RDU area.

What followed was a series of visits to the Raleigh City Council in addition to pivotal connections with the Durham effort of which I and this website are an integral part.  With combined enthusiasm and increased numbers, we brought our collective voice back to Raleigh City Council, which resulted in a stunning face off between a council resigned to corruption and the cold hard facts about their dubious fluoridation claims.  Watch Marcus and Katie below discuss how they leveraged Planet InfoWars to truly make a difference in our area.