Posts Tagged ‘definition’

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

Advertisements

In this video-essay I will explore the art of debating the Fluoride issue, but vicariously & more importantly expose the frightening reality that our civil servants, the ones we pay with our tax dollars, do not even understand the basic definition of a medication.  This is tragic in consideration of the fact that for almost 60 years Durham, Raleigh & Chapel Hill has enforced a mandatory & systematic medication of our public water supplies with what turns out to be a known neurotoxin Sodium Fluoride & Hydrofluorosilicic Acid.

As a primer please watch Chair of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Alan Rimer express his utter incompetence on this subject during a “NRTS” meeting, which is closed to public comment & includes Perennial Government Pig & Public Health Terrorist Rebecca King who makes it her job to convince these ad-hoc committees that Fluoride is the best thing since sliced bread.


If you are wondering why bother with this mental exercise I say it is always diligent to point out the illegitimacy of our public servant’s arguments when they are claiming to provide a service that we do not want.

There are two main branches to the anti-fluoridation argument, as I see it:

1) One has versed themselves in some of the peer reviewed science which has been published since the compulsory fluoridation program first began in the 1950’s, and is concerned with adverse health risks associated with this policy.

2) A principled disagreement with the concept of forced medication via the public water supply.

Naturally one should be able to fuse both branches into a firm stance, especially if he or she is well learned in the clinical/scientific area.  Eventually in arguments the problem arises though how to reconcile #1, if in the case of #2 you must call it a medication?  Unfortunately in today’s pharmacrazy society the word medication  is often considered to have a positive connotation, whereas if you call Fluoridation a “poison” this requires you bear the burden of proof & engage in that discussion about the possible benefits in contrast to your perceived damage.  For arguments the waters become muddy very quickly in this later scenario & results in a less successful expose if you are not prepared to have that scientific discussion.

This is why a fluoride activist should always be as scientifically prepared as possible, else you may end up being deceived or run roughshod over by the dizzying hypocrisy and confusion exhibited below courtesy Allan Spalt.  Realizing how muddy the waters have become is always a sobering moment:

But what happens when one makes only the argument that he disagrees with the concept of being medicated through the water supply?

As I will show below, even when using the government’s own terminology to have a rational discussion the minions of the system CAN NOT COMPUTE and will sometimes resort to diversion, perverting the facts, or outright lying to maintain the upper hand.

The only unfortunate caveat to this perspective is that it must inherently use the language of those in Government,  who themselves claim a preventative benefit derived from the introduction of Fluoride to our water supply which defines it as medication –

Even though I also object to the assertion that there is some benefit derived.

In this spirit I appeared at the OWASA public meeting April 25 to ask the question “Does the OWASA board believe that they have the authority to medicate our water supply?”

To which the appointed OWASA Chair Alan Rimer says,

“That’s a Rhetorical question. The Board doesn’t need to answer that.”

The very next month OWASA Appointee Terri Buckner either reveals her stunning ignorance on the matter or issues the audience a bold face lie when she claims the Federal Drug Administration “does not define Fluoride as a drug.”

This, despite my prior appearance which offered a completely self evident truth that can not be refuted.

No matter what her reason for saying this falsehood, I will not be going to the State Board of Health as she suggests I will be asking her directly June 13 at the next OWASA board meeting & holding her accountable for these silly statements.

Please enjoy these events juxtaposed, and stay tuned for the next update.

If this juxtaposition does not hit your lie detector, please just follow this very simple equation:

A principled mind should easily grasp a proof which make the position self evident, and I have attempted to do this below & in the video above:

1) The Government says Fluoride is added to the water supply because they allege it prevents cavities

2) The FDA’s definition of a Drug/Medication is; “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”  [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)]

3) Therefore, the one SINGLE argument ever perpetrated by pro-fluoridationists has to be at bare minimum considered “medication of the drinking water.”

One must then ask, since this is such an easy concept, why do those in Government who proudly proclaim on their websites that Fluoride is added to the water for “dental health,” not even admit this basic fact in a face to face meeting?

The answer is two fold-

1) In the most correct sense what the Government is doing by medicating the water supply is already illegal.  This is true for many more ethical & legal reasons than just the Federal Drug Administration’s requirement that you have a medical license & write a prescription to administer medicine to another person. But that ought to be enough.

Of all people, Pharmacist & Mayor of Raleigh Nancy MacFarlane should get this but she is a complicit liar and will stubbornly stare you dead in the face without giving a damn about the state policy to hurt your family.  See below:

2) The Bureaucrats are allergic to the term medication because it implies a level of culpability, and since they subconsciously realize they do not have the moral high ground and are in fact fully aware that this is a corrosive toxic waste product of the aluminum & fertilizer industries, they do not want to be reminded of their acquiescence with a state-run eugenics operation which has wrought incalculable damage in the form of lost IQ, premature death, & systemic disease onto humankind.

Watch this phenomenon play out in real time as I educate people well advanced in age compared to me on how to be principled in their thinking.  Don’t confuse my tenacity for enjoyment – I wish I did not have to endure this mind numbing discussion but it is one that needs to be had for the good of all.