Posts Tagged ‘king’

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

Dear Durham Against Fluoride Readers,

This is an urgent message concerning the public water fluoridation program in the Triangle area.  We NEED YOU to sign this petition (whether you live in Orange County or not). This will be presented to the local Orange Water and Sewer Authority board this coming THURSDAY MARCH 23, 2017 to immediately stop all actions to resume public water fluoridation in the wake of the recent public health crisis this past February.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN PETITION AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION IN CHAPEL HILL / CARRBORO 

To recap, here is an abbreviated  chronology of events, many of which can be found in video form on this website:

  • In 2012, citizens first put OWASA on notice that public water fluoridation is wrought with legal, ethical, medicinal, and practical problems and should be stopped immediately.
  • December of that year OWASA organized a slanted, closed panel of “experts” who were both PRO-Fluoride which lead them to vote on continuing the practice
  • In 2013, additional petitions were filed over the course of many months to legitimately examine the issue, while OWASA attempted to “deal” with such citizens without formally addressing the issue.
  • In the summer of 2013 OWASA voted AGAIN to continue public water fluoridation and encouraged us to consult with the county commissioners if they were so inclined to change the policy.
  • In 2014, we did just that and found an equally bureaucratic and non-critical examination of the facts.  The county health director and county commissioners did nothing & fluoridation continued.
  • In February of 2017 OWASA “accidentally” set the fluoride feed pumps to 8X the normal pump speed and left them on for 3.5 hours.  When it was discovered, the water treatment plant was shut down, and subsequently a water main broke which left the community without safe running water for 2 days.
  • Later that month, OWASA heard from citizens concerning the water disaster, and a full 90% of the respondents including two former board members were in staunch opposition to the public water fluoridation program.  OWASA did not address any concern specifically as they wanted the water disaster and the fluoridation issue to be considered in a mutually exclusive vacuum.
  • The next OWASA meeting with public comment, even more citizens arrived to speak against public water fluoridation and OWASA’s negligence, but OWASA still would not address the issue head on and reserved the right to “examine or not examine it.”  In the same meeting, OWASA admitted Fluoride binds to lead and enters the water system and voted unanimously against my petition for a public referendum on the public fluoridation issue.
  • Then, OWASA held an impromptu meeting at their community room where they would decide “if we would examine, or not examine the public water fluoridation issue again.”  The UNC dental school was obviously commissioned and sent a bunch of their lackey’s including Rebecca King who testified in Durham & Chapel Hill on behalf of the Oral Health Section of the Department of Health and Human Services back in 2012 to promote Fluoridation, but was fired by DHHS in 2013.  Citizens suspect OWASA contacted the dental school because they were losing the argument at every meeting both in numbers and in logic.
  • OWASA then voted AGAIN to resume “normal” fluoridation protocols despite majority public sentiment in opposition.
  • OWASA is holding a meeting on the 23rd of March where they will announced their planned date to “resume fluoridation” ostensibly after they have “fixed” the issues which lead to over-fluoridation in the first place.

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

Join us July 29 @ The NC Legislative Building in Raleigh, North Carolina

Since July 3, 2013 it has been exclusively featured on the front of Durham Against Fluoride that I would be appearing at the Durham City Council “Work Session,” on July 25th where I would formally appeal the Public Board of Health’s recommendation to continue medicating our public drinking water.  To make such an appearance, citizens must first register with the city 10 days in advance in order that the council have time to review the citizen’s concern and prepare a response if needed.  For the board of health’s recent egregious error of recommending the continued medicating of our water supply, 4 citizens & myself had registered properly by the due date to protest & appeal this decision before the Durham City Council.  That is until this writer received the following unsolicited mail from the agenda coordinator, Terry Capers, who works in the Durham City Manager’s office:

I am writing to inform you that our office has received your request to address the Durham City Council about water fluoridation at its Thursday, July 25th Work Session.  This topic will be discussed at a future Work Session when the Public Health Director will be presenting recommendations to the Mayor and City Council.  The future meeting date has not been identified but our office will contact you as soon as we become aware of it. 

Please be advised that this matter will not be included on the City Council’s July 25th Work Session agenda.

Feel free to contact the City Manager’s Office if you have additional questions. 

Thank you!   

Since I had never before heard of a city actually preventing a citizen from petitioning when he/she has correctly registered with the city to appear & be granted a meek 3 minutes – it just so happened I did have additional questions.  I quickly replied to Terry in an attempt to garnish some clarity on this strange process:

Terry,Thank you for this pivotal update.  I have two basic questions if this is the direction the City of Durham would like to go, and I would appreciate a response as soon as possible since it will have dire ramifications for how those of us opposed to this practice react to this decision:

1) What is the format of this to be announced work session?  Is it simply a reading of the recommendation already issued or will the ethics & science also be discussed among the council?

2) Will the citizenry be invited to participate in the discussion IE speak, ask questions, interact with those making the recommendations?  If so, what format is the City intending to permit?

Thank you for your answers

What ensued was a series of phone conversations with one Karmisha Wallace, an assistant to the Agenda Coordinator Terry Kapers, who together ostensibly “manage the agenda” for the city council work sessions.  I called in to get as much clarity about what was truly meant by this odd e-mail and why exactly the city would not allow the properly registered citizens to speak on public water fluoridation July 25th.

In summation of my multiple phone conversations, it was being asserted that the public health director, Gayle Harris, had not yet formally provided the recommendation to the City Council due to staff vacancies.  According to Gayle, these critical staff members were needed to perform the last edits & finishing touches on the recommendation before submitting to the Durham City Council.  Gayle said she had no intentions of appearing to present anything, only that she would be providing a written recommendation to the council.  This assertion is inherently hilarious, and an obviously false one, considering that the recommendation was formally issued on their own website June 14, here:

DURHAM, N.C. – After nearly ten months of study, the Durham County Board of Health voted unanimously Thursday evening to accept the recommendation of a water fluoridation ad hoc committee, chaired by Dr. F. Vincent Allison, to continue the fluoridation of Durham’s drinking water supply at current levels.

This recommendation is deemed effective for prevention of tooth decay and for promotion of good oral health by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (US-DHHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The issue originally came before the Board of Health in August 2012; after Durham City Council asked the board to investigate its merits, in order to address complaints made by a citizen of Durham that fluoride is harmful to our health and therefore fluoridation of drinking water should be discontinued.

Why it has taken more than a month for Gayle Harris and her public health fiefdom to e-mail this link to the city council members is a rhetorical question who’s answer should be obvious to anyone who is not cripplingly naive. It is ludicrous to suggest that the City Council is not aware of this subject or the details of the recommendation made by their own ad-hoc committee since I am not even an employee of the government & I was aware of it a full month before I was informed by the bluffing city manager’s office that the City Council has not yet been told.

I say so vehementaly due to the irrefutable fact that electronic communications is ubiquitous among these bureaucrats and therefore have instantaneous access to not only their own internal communications but the obvious & numerous related articles which appeared immediately before & after the public health board made their decision:

June 12, 2013: Fight against fluoride in water comes to Orange and Durham counties

June 13, 2013: OWASA (and Durham) Vote to Continue Water Fluoridation

Around the same time, my letter to the editor was published in the Herald Sun, in response to Gary Slade’s fallacious statements on this local controversy:

July 1, 2013: Fluoride, A Drug Illegally Added To Our Water

Given this context it became immediately apparent to me that this was just an effort to dissuade me and the other activists from appearing and making this whole government-theater look silly which we inevitably would do.  So I challenged Terry Caper’s e-mail by requesting to appear, despite the fact that it was not officially on the agenda, a message best described in its own words:

Terry,

I do not plan to wait for the public health director to formally present this recommendation to the mayor and city council, as these recommendations have already been publicly distributed and published on the county website.

If water fluoridation is not an agenda item tomorrow, that is ok, I would still like to speak at the council tomorrow.

Can you confirm that I will be acknowledged and allowed my time at the podium?

Thank you,

Corey

What happens next should alarm every single man woman and child in the City of Durham, as it clearly demonstrates that William Bell has apparently been declared King, King of Durham – and has the power to flip on or off the free speech of the citizens:

Hi Corey,

Tomorrow’s City Council Work Session agenda has been established and water fluoridation is not included.  It is up to the Mayor to permit individuals to speak at Council meetings, so I’m unable to confirm speakers.

I understand you spoke with Karmisha Wallace yesterday and I should let you know that Mrs. Wallace and I both work in the City Manager’s Office and on managing the City Council meeting agendas.

Have a good afternoon!

Undeterred & banking on the off-chance that the City Council would actually demonstrate some quantity of integrity, I appeared and prepared to speak exposing in 3 minutes or less why the public hearing which Durham worked so hard to produce was a total fraud & red herring.  After sitting silently for more than 1 hour, I realized that not me or any one else who signed up to appear would be called.  I subsequently left, resolving to expose this would-be King Bill Bell as soon as possible.

Incidentally, the recommendation I intended to appeal was made based on the hearing which Public Health Director Gayle Harris had me removed from, thanks to the efforts of a Durham Sherrif’s deputy, for exposing the fact that Durham medicates our water supply with a corrosive industrial byproduct called Hydrofluorosilicic Acid  – a powerful neurotoxin & carcinogen.

Like all of the government’s recent pathetic & despicable behaviors we have exposed, the idea of King of Durham William Bell having the power to permit or not permit, as he sees fit, the citizens of Durham from petitioning their government is a peak example how debased & corrupt our society has become.  To suggest that Mr. Bell has the god-like power to stifle the truth & our voice on a whim, for the sake of delaying the inevitable dirty truth about water fluoridation ever coming out, is a funny suggestion that I will soon destroy with gusto. 

For starters, I will be appearing tomorrow at the Moral Monday protests to expose fluoride & will be handing out literature. I will be carrying this – so look out for me!!

IMG_9993Join us July 29 @ The NC Legislative Building in Raleigh, North Carolina

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.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and Coronary Artery Disease

A January 2012 study published by the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System has linked Sodium Fluoride uptake with the hardening & calcification of major arteries, also known as Cardiovascular disease & the number one cause of death in the United States.

The study first appeared in the Nuclear Medicine Communications Journal, a “rapid communications journal publishing research and clinical work in all areas of nuclear medicine for an international readership,”  but these observations have not yet been picked up by the collective.  The research was performed by nuclear medicine physicians who retrospectively reviewed the imaging data and cardiovascular history of 61 patients who received whole-body sodium [F]fluoride PET/CT studies at their institution from 2009 to 2010. Fluoride uptake and calcification in major arteries, including coronary arteries, were analyzed by both visual assessment and standardized uptake value measurement.

In the introduction section it is interestingly noted that the phenomenon of hardening arteries & what risks that may pose to our health has been extensively studied, however Fluoride uptake & it’s clinical significance to coronary arteries has not yet been documented:

To predict and prevent any deadly cardiovascular events, extensive studies have been conducted to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular disease.  Over the past decade, many cardiovascular studies focused on the calcification process in atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries).  Calcification in atherosclerosis occurs through an active process that resembles bone formation and is controlled by complex enzymatic and cellular pathways.  Coronary artery calcification parallels atherosclerosis progress and is strongly and linearly correlated with fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in coronary arteries.  However, the clinical significance of fluoride uptake in coronoary arteries has not been documented.

The results of this study therefore have vast implications for our collectively becoming aware of one main contributing factor to the ongoing scourge heart disease, namely municipal water fluoridation.  This is especially true in consideration that 80% of Americans are since 1957 forcibly fluoridated  via their public drinking water & cardiovascular disease still remains the #1 cause of death in America (600,000/year).

Despite this study’s relative significance to the research produced by Harvard which concluded higher Fluoride uptake predictably lowers the Intelligence Quotient in humans, these specific conclusions have unfortunately not made it into mainstream news to the same degree. Although the full article admits more research should be conducted on the clinical significance of Fluoride uptake, this is the exact problem we face (lack of studies) nearly 60 years into the forced, highly systematic & ubiquitous fluoridation of our municipal water supplies!  One wonders the true extent of damage done if our scientists are only just now realizing the tragic link between Fluoride uptake & a disease that kills more Americans than one hundred and seventy  9/11s combined EACH YEAR

This blows a huge hole in the already horrendously flawed pro-fluoride argument which posits that drinking Fluoride only affects the teeth and does not have any health hazards to other organs of the body.  For fluoride fighters in the area, listen to me debunk local Public Health Terrorist Rebecca King once more, who ridiculously claims ingestion of fluoride is the best thing since sliced bread as it returns to the mouth in our saliva & continuously bathes our teeth in Fluoride-rich fluid! Such a bold faced & twisted manipulation of the facts is incredible in that it intrinsically admits Fluoride is penetrating all cells of the body- even the salivation glands.

So What were the results?

Patients

There were 58 male patients and three female patients. Detailed clinical histories and the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking history, obesity, and history of cardiovascular events, were obtained for all patients. The clinical characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Patients' Clinical CharacteristicsImaging and Statistical Analyses

sd_CTorthopedics_main_enCT and PET images were coregistered by the Philips Extended Brilliance workstation (Philips Healthcare). CT, PET, and fused PET/CT images were evaluated visually and semi-quantitatively simultaneously using the same workstation. All images were analyzed by two independent nuclear medicine physicians blinded to all patients’ clinical information. Inter-reader reproducibility was excellent and was evaluated using an intraclass correlation coefficient (0.89). Vascular calcification was identified as positive on CT images if the target was visually detectable with a greater than 130 Hounsfield units. CT-attenuated PET images were evaluated for fluoride uptake in major arteries. Background activity was based on the standardized uptake value (SUV) of the blood pool, which was calculated from the mean SUVs of three circular regions of interest (ROIs) placed in the left atrium, mid lumen of the aortic arch, and abdominal aorta at the level of the celiac trunk on axial images. The sizes of ROIs were 2cm in diameter for the left atrium and 1cm for the aortic arch and the abdominal aorta.

Results (Abbreviated, click link to view original article)

Patients’ age and reasons for sodium fluoride PET/CT imaging are summarized in Table 1.  Most patients were men with a median age of 66 years (27-91 years).  The majority of patients (69%) had more than one risk factor for coronary artery disease.

Arterial sodium Fluoride uptake and calcification

Arterial wall sodium fluoride uptake and calcification were evaluated in major arteries, including carotid arteries, the thoracic ascending (including aortic arch) aorta, the thoracic descending aorta, the abdominal aorta, femoral arteries, and major branches of coronary arteries. Iliac arteries were not evaluated because of frequently observed urinary and occasional bowel uptake in the pelvis, which interferes with the accurate assessment of iliac vessels. For coronary arteries, four major branches were evaluated. An example of fluoride uptake in femoral arteries is shown in Fig. 1. Orthogonal views of fluoride uptake in the aorta and coronary arteries are shown in Figs 2 and 3.
Figure1
Figure 2Figure3Relationship between coronary fluoride uptake and cardiovascular risk factors
The coronary arteries were also investigated for fluoride uptake. Four major branches of coronary arteries, including left main artery (LMA), left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCA), and right coronary arteriy (RCA) were evaluated. Fluoride uptake was more frequently observed in the LAD and LCAs.  A similar pattern was also identified in coronary artery calcification. In each individual coronary branch, calcification was more frequently observed than fluoride uptake (Table 2).  Table2
  • Among 10 patients who had significant three-vessel coronary calcifications, 80% demonstrated fluoride uptake in at least one coronary branch (data not shown).
  • Cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking history, and history of coronary artery disease were reviewed in all patients (Table 3).
  • The majority of the patients (69%) had more than one cardiovascular risk factor; however, neither the individual cardiovascular risk factor nor the number of risk factors was significantly correlated with coronary fluoride uptake (Table 3).
Table3
Nine patients had a history of cardiovascular events. Among them, eight demonstrated identifiable coronary fluoride uptake. There was significant correlation between coronary calcification and fluoride uptake in this group evaluated by Fisher’s exact test (Table 3). All nine patients also demonstrated coronary calcification on CT images. We also compared the SUVmax in coronary arteries between patients with and without a history of cardiovascular events. The average coronary SUV max in patients with a history of cardiovascular events was 1.70, significantly higher than 1.39 for patients without a history of cardiovascular events (P=0.029, two-tailed Student’s t-test). No correlation was observed between cardiovascular risk factors and fluoride uptake in other vascular territories (noncoronary).

Discussion Highlights

Vascular calcification, in particular coronary calcification, has been shown to predict vascular events [25–27]. 

In our study, fluoride uptake and CT calcification are significantly correlated in the same arterial territories, except in the abdominal aorta. This is because of the extremely high positive rate (97%, only one patient demonstrated negative uptake) for fluoride uptake in the abdominal aorta.

 Fluoride uptake either overlaps with calcification or locates adjacent to the detectable calcium deposits, suggesting that fluoride uptake and detectable calcification represent different stages of the atherosclerotic process.

 We found that fluoride uptake in coronary arteries is significantly correlated with a patient’s history of cardiovascular events, and the uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than that in patients without cardiovascular events. These results further support the fact that higher fluoride uptake in coronary arteries indicates increased cardiovascular risk.

The combination of sodium [18F]fluoride PET and CT is a promising imaging modality that provides both metabolic and anatomic information in evaluating vascular calcification. However, large-scale studies are needed to evaluate the clinical significance of fluoride PET/CT for imaging atherosclerosis.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that vascular calcification and fluoride uptake are significantly correlated in the same arterial territory, although not necessarily overlapping in the same anatomic locations. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Combined anatomic and metabolic imaging with sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT offers a promising, noninvasive method to evaluate atherosclerosis.

Introduction

To understand in a comprehensive manner what transpired in the video above one has to first fully understand the background and context of my effort as an individual to end the practice of fluoridating our public water supplies in Durham, North Carolina.

If you have been following this blog you may already be aware of my journeys as a turd through the bowels of Durham’s city government so if you want to skip to the culminating event, Click Here.

In order to put the culminating event in the proper context what follows is a chronologically succinct account of my efforts which all lead up to the rather climactic events from this past Thursday evening.

My Awakening

In December 2011 I was getting dental work done on my back molars when I was inspired to ask the question,

“Is there Fluoride in the drinking water?” 

The dentist replied,

“Yes of course!”

I had always heard fluoride was in the drinking water but never quite understood how drinking it would do any good for just my teeth but not affect other parts of my body – so I asked

“Why is it in the drinking water again?”

The simple yet oft repeated response came without surprise,

“It’s good for your dental enamel.”

The problem with this statement is that it is never accompanied by anything more than anecdotal evidence and in my case, the anecdotal evidence was not so supportive of drinking fluoride.  You see, I was diagnosed early on with having a defect known as “Dental Fluorosis” which is the literal degradation and deterioration of dental enamel.

This condition is partly responsible for my needing such dramatic dental work done in the first place but more than anything is indicative of fluoride overexposure from the inside out.  This means every other organ in my body is also overexposed which bothers me greatly.

Naturally, such a contradiction of circumstances caused me to question the official rhetoric on this topic and lead me to do a great deal of research which is where the real story begins…

IMG_9588

Click for Larger View – These are my teeth which are consistent with the scientific literature on patients suffering from dental Fluorosis.

My Dental Xrays which Show Fluorosis and rampant dental decay

My Dental Xrays which Show Fluorosis and dental decay

My First Appearance

What I uncovered in my research was so startling I began to wonder who I should tell.  At first I was simply alarmed at the idea that something in our drinking water would be so dangerous, but at the time was not mentally prepared for the bureaucracy and cognitive dissonance I would later experience when trying to bring this information to everyone’s attention.

In an almost automated emotional reaction to the research I uncovered about public water fluoridation, I appeared for the first time before the Durham City Council on December 20th, 2011.  With little forethought I showed up to bluntly present the damning evidence that Fluoride has been shown to reduce IQ, cause skeletal fragility and bone density issues, as well as cause the condition I suffer from – Fluorosis.

The response to my petition came promptly from Mayor Bill Bell which will not surprise anyone who has any experience with corporate government,

Obviously, the suggestion [to remove fluoride] would be a dramatic change from the way we presently operate, I’m sure the manager and his staff will take it under advisement and come back with a recommendation.”

The “manager and his staff” eventually did take it under advisement and came back with the following recommendation:

Durham's responseIn response to my statement on December 25, 2011 the following article was published by Ray Gronberg and the local Herald Sun newspaper which broadly dismissed my miniscule effort to raise awareness.  The publication of this article only thickened the plot however because in it certain governmental authorities were prompted to respond to my allegations.  Their response which inherently must be deceptive became motivation for me to continue exposing their lies.  Kevin Buchholtz, a NC Dept. of Health and Human Services stooge who later plays a role in this saga replied to my petition by saying,

From the State’s perspective trying to respond to every allegation regarding fluoride is challenging and counterproductive.”

My Next Move

Having been totally dissatisfied with the City’s response to my petition, I decided to make things a lot more challenging from the ‘state’s perspective’ and created this website in January 2012.  Since then DurhamAgainstFluoride.com has served as a media platform to document my effort and spread the word locally and abroad.

The initial publication about my December appearance at city council combined with the creation of this website was enough to grab the attention of some other fluoride activists who reached out and began coaching me on how to be more effective with my efforts.  One such activist was Jeff Green, National Director for Citizens for Safe Drinking water who taught me how to tangle with the government on their terms.  The result of my discussions with him manifested in My Next Move, which was a formal request for documentation made on March 22, 2012.

According to the strategy the best way to expose the lack of scientific evidence which supports community water fluoridation is to ask for it!  Jeff emphasized that since the evidence is on our side, asking for toxicological studies and other documentation will put The Powers That Be on defense, shifting the burden of proof to the city who then must convince us that fluoridation is such a critical public health benefit.  The reasoning was that if no documentation existed, the inability to produce it would cause even the most ignorant in government to begin asking questions internally.

So in January-February 2012 I began making phone calls to the water management department in order to procure the documents I knew did not exist.  What transpired was a series of dead ends which eventually produced the following, stunning information:

  1. The City of Durham purchases Hydrofluorosilicic acid from Pencco, a chemicals supplier who re-sells wholesale toxic waste from
  2. MOSAIC, a division of POTASH corporation who sells the leftover wasteproducts from fertilizer/phosphate production to the City of Durham who
  3. Systematically bleeds the cocktail of pollutants @ .7 parts per/million into our drinking water as a way of disposing the waste

Even more stunning still was the only formal document ever tendered by the water authority which testifies to the safety of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid.  This chemical, which has a HAZMAT rating of 8 Corrosive, is admitted in the city’s OWN literature to cause fluorosis and bone density issues as well as having 0 toxicological studies:

Dissatisfied with this as evidence of fluoride’s crucial public health benefit, I appeared on March 22, 2012 to make the city council aware of this absence of information and to formally request they produce the necessary toxicological documentation to the citizens.  What happened next immediately told me that I was up against forces with far more motivation to continue this policy than I had ever originally anticipated.

In a premeditated nature The Powers That Be deployed NC Department of Health and Human Services goon Kevin Bucholtz who is the West Region Supervisor for the Oral Health Division.  He appeared subsequent my formal request for information to rebut a position I did not even argue.  I gotta hand it to Kevin – he really impressed me with such a whirlwind of hypocritical dribble.  The most amazing thing is that he came with prepared statements and yet, for 4+ minutes, Kevin rambles on about how the NC Department of Health does not agree with the conclusion drawn by millions of citizens around the world that drinking fluoride is of no public benefit.  In the next breath Kevin bluntly admits that hydrofluorosilicic acid can leech lead from the plumbing system and is directly responsible for his own daughter suffering from Fluorosis. 

Just so we’re clear:

  1. I attend city council to ask for toxicology studies on fluoride
  2. The state sends their best rep – Kevin – who says in one breath Fluoride is a poison
  3. And in the next, it’s good for you and he’s proud of it

How do you argue with that?

This has to be heard to be believed:

Note: This same appearance was later cited on the Durham Water Management Website in Direct Response to my request for information:

As seen on DurhamNC.gov:

DurhamSite

Connecting the Dots

After witnessing first hand the inaction of Durham’s City government I began to firmly understand how crippled the humble minds of our “authorities” really were on this subject and all faith in their willingness to reasonably address this issue was lost.

Since The Powers That Be had acted in such a preemptive and precise manner, I was able to discern intuitively that I should simply try in whatever way possible to raise awareness on this issue and to ignore for a little while the illusion that my appearances at city council affected any great change.  So I began exploring other avenues and became more committed to educating by any means necessary.

I began to realize at this point that this is a war of consciousness, spanning time and dimensions so I relied increasingly on pure inspiration and intuition to fuel this effort.  I felt increasingly that the effort was past-time fun which lead me to take great joy in the further development of this website, printing flyers, meditating, lucid dreaming and speaking about Fluoride whenever appropriate in conversation.  These tiny efforts approached as just a part of regular every day life over time are what I credit with sowing the seeds of later success.

On July 12, 2012 I published this report which cites a 1991 study done in Durham where scientists and the water authority collaborated to study the effects of ending water fluoridation.  One of the central pillars holding up the Pro-Fluoridationist argument is the fear tactic that if we stop fluoridating, we will see an explosion in dental cavities.  The conclusion of the Durham study makes it an incredibly significant one in that it supports the debunking of this very claim.

Later in this report you will hear a precise example of this from our civil servants who state that children will miss more school if we turn fluoride off, due to the rise in dentist visits from the ensuing tooth decay!

It’s this same crazed fear-tactic which has kept fluoridation ongoing for so long and therefore makes the discovery of this study and it’s implications so worth mentioning in isolation.

The most ironic thing is that I was a likely participant of this study, since it was conducted in Durham during my elementary years with children from the public school I attended.  Although any evidence is surely lost in time, it is a distinct possibility which I had to consider and therefore motivated me to send my report to hundreds of government/media/academic professionals in the area.

The study itself measured the incisors of over 1800 gradeschool children in Durham and over the course of an 11 month period, the study concluded no rise in Cavities but a decrease in the level of Fluorosis among participants.  For convenience I have posted the video from that report below:

Durham guinea pig reports; Duke University study links city water fluoridation with dental damage

During my research I discovered that the Durham City Council takes their policy directives on public health issues from a separate committee – the Durham County Public Health Board.  This meant I had attended the “wrong” body of our government originally which at the time seemed to explain my lack of success.  Of course, the government will never point you in the right direction so it only took some months and a lot of personal time to uncover this.  This phenomenon where council after committee after working group relegate authority to each other is the leitmotif of our government which is constructed like the layers of an onion for the express purpose that you will hopefully go away.

Nevertheless I was informed that the Public Health Board is instrumental in changing Durham’s fluoridation policy since the city council would vote largely based on the recommendations from this board, who is composed of citizen “experts” from different disciplines. From this point on I made it my goal to educate the Durham Public Health Board, and hopefully get through to enough people to at least bring it to a citizen vote.

During this same time I contacted and began working closely with Steve Daniels & ABC news affiliate WTVD Channel 11, who followed me for a few months while they were producing an investigative report on community water fluoridation.

After some conversations with WTVD it was decided that my next formal step was to appear before the Durham Public Health Board and present the same information I had previously brought to the City Council’s attention.

On September 13th I made my first official appeal to the Durham County Health board after my initial report:

Thanks to my appearance on September 13 and the presence of local media, the Public Health Board began a formal inquiry into the subject and agreed to look further into the evidence.  Despite my reservations that this was just another hoop to jump through, I was quick to accept this as a partial victory since at least the subject was being discussed.  When you accept this is a battle for awareness discussion no matter how contrived can only be measured as success.

Jump Point

Then, on November 15, 2012 Durham Against Fluoride had it’s first major breakthrough thanks to the completion of WTVD’s 7.5 minute investigative report:

The reaction was overwhelming for me as well as the WTVD crew.  I watched Steve Daniel’s facebook receive thousands of likes, hundreds of comments and I was told personally by the Senior Producer that they had never in her time at WTVD experienced such a passionate response to a story they aired.  Anchorman Steve Daniels likewise sent me the following e-mail which pointed to a total success:

Corey –

I have been overwhelmed by the response to the story.

You get all the credit for getting the ball rolling on our end.  I appreciate your persistence in pushing us toward revisiting the issue.

We are working on another angle for February.

Let’s stay in touch about your efforts.

-Steve

In response to this negative media attention, the Water Management Department immediately created a job posting for a “Senior Public Affairs Specialist” who would be paid more than $65,000/year to actively combat my efforts to expose these basic truths about public water fluoridation.

Is Durham Water Management Division Preparing Pro-Fluoride Propaganda?

With the help of WTVD’s report I was immediately put in touch with fluoride activists from around the world.  More importantly I was able to network with local activists who also have a passion for this issue.  Thus began my cooperation and more formal collaboration with individuals from Wake County & Chapel Hill, resulting in the following reports and the creation of RaleighAgainstFluoride.com:

Building on the momentum almost one month after the publication of WTVD’s report, I appeared again at the Durham Public Health Board to encourage them to stand on the side of social justice in unison against community water fluoridation.  This was moments before they adjourned to have a closed-door meeting where they finalized the board’s next steps to address the citizen concerns on public water fluoridation.

Durham County Health Board: “We are reviewing the evidence”

The Hearing


On March 14, 2013 Approximately 16 months after my initial appearance at the Durham City Council I found myself before the Durham County Public Health Board a third time in what can only be described as the culminating event.  It is my sincere belief that this will serve as a secondary jump point for this effort towards a new, expanded level of awareness for the general public.

Due to the preceding 16 months of work exposing the fluoride deception in my area I was able to force the county health board to formally acknowledge and review this subject which they begrudgingly did in a contrived & organized fashion to simply perpetuate the status quo.

Keeping with the leitmotif of all corporate governments, the Durham county health board relegated their own logical/rational thinking capabilities to another committee of people in the form of an “expert panel.”

To my total lack of surprise, I found that the panel was cherry picked by the City to achieve a self-described “balanced” perspective on this issue.  In other words, the 5-person panel were with only one exception uniformly government-paid employees offering only their personal opinion and not any scientific facts whatsoever.  Later In this report you may even hear Department of Health Dental Chief Rebecca King actually cite one of her credentials as having been “a supporter of fluoridation.” Can that be put on a resume?

Before the proceedings began I was given 3 minutes to speak and unfortunately was not able to capture video of this.  I was unprepared to speak since the health board would not return my phone calls to find out who would be participating on the “expert panel,” so I simply responded in a reactionary way when my time came.

The following is a basic recall of what I stated to the board & the panel who was present:

Hi everyone, my name is Corey Sturmer. For those of you who don’t know me I have been speaking about public water fluoridation here in Durham for a little more than a year now.  During that year I have learned a lot about how government works and I hope to continue that today, as I understand we are having a hearing on this important subject known as community water fluoridation.
So to help make this a successful hearing I would like to urge you the board to ask the expert panel the most appropriate questions possible.  So I will just go down the list –

08e46dc

Vicki Westbrook
vicki.westbrook@durhamnc.gov

Vicki Westbrook – She is the assistant director of the water management department.  You should ask her WHERE the water department purchases the fluoride that is added to our water.  If she is honest she will have to tell you that Williams Water Treatment Plant buys hydrofluorosilic acid from a fertilizer manufacturer named MOSAIC.  Hydrofluorosilicic acid is the byproduct of phosphate manufacturing and the city helps them dispose of it by bleeding it into our water.

So this is an important thing to ask Vicki and I am sure she will tell you this.

Timothy Wright
tim_wright@dentistry.unc.edu

Then we have Mr. Tim Wright & Rebecca King who are licensed Dentists.  When you are asking them questions be sure to ask if it is in their professional opinion because as a licensed dentist he is not permitted to answer questions about INGESTING fluoride – otherwise he would need to be an internal medicine doctor.  Anything else is just his personal opinion and remember, it is not JUST about the teeth since we are drinking the chemical and therefore exposing all of our cells to the effects of it.

I also see on the agenda several public health officials, and I know that the tendency of all city governments is to follow guidance from the public health department.  I think it’s important to remember that as much as they may mean well, it is not up to the public health department to decide what goes in our water – that is a decision for ALL of us – You, me and the rest of the citizens.  Do not be intimidated by the public health department either because there are dozens and dozens of examples where cities have ignored their state health department to cease fluoridation.

So if one thing could come out of this meeting it should be that we put this to a vote – and let the CITIZENS decide what goes into the public drinking water.  It is all of our decision, as health board members, public health officials or citizens living in durham – so we should let the citizens debate the facts and give them the chance to make an informed decision.  Thank you.

Setting the Stage for The Big Lie

In order to effectively brainwash the public health board, The Powers That Be carefully selected 5 individuals (4 present) who collectively paint a broad and deceptive enough brush stroke over the subject of water fluoridation so as to tranquilize any inquisitive mind that may see through their ragged arguments.

As if my 3 minute public comment did not ever happen, the chair of the Public Health Board James Miller can be heard below stating that “Anyone who interrupts will be forced to leave” with The Sheriff Deputy waiting patiently in the corner, clearly requested prior to the meeting in case the known antagonist (myself) were to make any public demonstrations of their deception.

This was an obvious way for the city to keep the panel’s opinion sterile, only to be taken in isolation of all external factors – like factual information from me.

As if insulated from the glaring truths of this issue, the self-concocted pro fluoride cheer-squad began their dreadful & irrelevant rambling on the efficacy of public water fluoridation.  Using tired old scripts from the Center for Disease Control, Public Health Department, and American Dental Association which have long been debunked on this site and others, these so-called “experts” offered nothing more than anecdotal evidence and circumlocution of the real core issues to do with the illegal medication of our public water supply.

Vicki Westbrook

vicki.westbrook@durhamnc.gov

First up was Vicki Westbrook who was mentioned previously in my speech and is one of the first persons I confronted on this journey.  She offered a mostly inert presentation essentially reiterating the very basic facts of what the Water Management Department does.

The Water Management Department is simply complicit with whatever the City Council says, who further take their mandates from other bureaucratic institutions like the Department of Public Health and the City’s own health board.  As such, Vicki’s position is more administrative than anything so I would not ever expect her to rock the boat.   I did find it interesting however when she states that the City of Durham began fluoridating due to a “Postcard vote in 1957,” which should give everyone pause.

Amy Keyworth

Next was Amy Keyworth who seems like a bright person but was obviously recruited for dubious reasons beyond her narrow perspective.  Amy is a hydrogeologist for the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which means she is an expert on the groundwater of North Carolina.  As you can see in the video she presents some comprehensive data on natural fluoride concentration levels in North Carolina’s ground water, but does not draw any conclusions herself.   Her data taken as a solitary perspective is presented to the board without any elucidation as to how this relates to the issue I am raising – namely – the medication of our public drinking water with hydrofluorosilicic acid!  This should demonstrate either the corruption of the board or complete ignorance of those who picked the panel since groundwater has absolutely nothing to do with the mandated distribution of purchased chemicals.

The reason her presentation was totally irrelevant is exposed later in the hearing right before I am escorted out of the building by the sheriff.  The key point which my higher self forced me to explain is that it is NOT naturally occurring fluoride that is added to our water supply and therefore groundwater has nothing to do with this issue.

Amazingly this is not even HIDDEN on the Water Management Website yet it was obscured in the very hearing which I worked more than 1 year to produce!

As seen on DurhamNC.gov

DurhamSite2

Rebecca King

(919) 707-5480
Rebecca.King@dhhs.nc.gov

Rebecca King is a Dental Advisor for the NC Department of Health and Human Services (Oral Health Division).  If you remember from earlier in this saga it was her colleague Kevin Buchholtz from the same division who originally attempted to rebut me during my March 22, 2012 appearance.  I wonder if Kevin was not available for this hearing or he was somewhat intimidated by the e-mail I sent him before my first appearance at the Durham Public Health meeting.  The following e-mail went unanswered and I never saw Kevin again, not even once:

To: Kevin.Buchholtz@dhhs.nc.gov

Date: Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Subject: We Are Coming For You.

Kevin,

Your duplicitous endorsement of Fluoride is going to get you in trouble someday.

I hope to see you again soon,

https://durhamagainstfluoride.com/2012/09/13/special-event-thursday-september-13-at-durham-county-health-building/

Sincerely,

Corey

To Rebecca’s credit she may have one-uped Kevin with her defense of fluoridation so will be hearing from me likewise very soon.  I must admit this was a tall order when it was Kevin Buchholtz who, in his own argument, made a tacit admission that FSA leeches lead from pipe systems and gave his own daughter fluorosis.

Rebecca King’s defense of fluoridation will no doubt be one for the books:

“We drink fluoridated water and the trace levels of fluoride return to the mouth in the saliva where it provides topical protection  as teeth are continuously bathed by fluoride-rich saliva.”

Tim Wright

919-537-3955
wrightt@DENTISTRY.UNC.EDU

In a wide-ranging 7.5 minute stream of complete bullshit, local pediatric dentist Tim Wright makes short work debunking hundreds of scientific studies without providing a solitary shred of evidence other than his own highly fluoridated opinion.   His three main factors, “Safety, Effectiveness, & Cost” blatantly ignore the self evident ethical and legal problems with mass medication of the population which I point out in this article pursuant existing Federal Drug Administration Laws.  As I expected Tim Wright did not offer his professional opinion, only his personal one, since he is licensed as a dentist and not qualified to answer questions about how drinking Hydrofluorosilicic Acid affects the human body.

I expected very little from Timothy the moment I recognized him on the panel.

First – I always take offense when someone as FAT as Tim Wright lectures me about why I should be forced to drink fluoride when he is clearly so reckless with his own body.

Secondly – It immediately occurred to me that he was the one lone doofus defending fluoride in my WTVD report! 

According to my sources most people turned down the opportunity to appear on TV in support of Fluoride but Tim Wright volunteered himself.  This leads me to believe he is either monetarily invested in the perpetuation of fluoridation or he has constructed such an identity with fluoride through his misguided academic work that he is willing to defend it in a public forum rather than admit the bitter truth.

Before the meeting began I heard Tim Wright whisper to a colleague, “Are you ready to do battle?” as if he is on some kind of team.   Timothy – if you really want to do battle and seem to be so wrapped up in pushing fluoride then you should debate me in a public forum on Water Fluoridation.   I don’t even need the pretense of being a dentist in order to deconstruct your silly arguments.

Using sweeping generalizations and vague dictums Tim Wright in a most blanket manner discredits ALLscientific criticisms of fluoride ingestion but later admits that “we know fluoride is hazardous in high levels.”

Well Tim, if this fact is known even by the expert panel chosen to defend fluoridation then it is no surprise that the science of DOSAGE is completely lost on your humble mind.

When considering Fluoridation as a preventative medicine via ingestion the key factor which is incredibly lost on these dense people is not whether Fluoride is equitably delivered to the water…The most important factor is the equitable distribution to our human bodies!!

In decades of academic study has it never occurred to this imbecile that we all will naturally drink more or less water than one another?

These most basic facts are either totally lost on Timothy Wright or he is so blinded by his academic brainwashing that he refuses to see how outdated and discredited his perspective has become.  Sooner or later the bitter reality will catch up to Dr. Wright and I hope at that point he will offer a public apology to me and everyone else he taught in his ventures as a professor. 

I can tell you that I am already waiting for it.

Laura Gerald

The North Carolina State Director of Public Health was apparently too busy on the 14th to attend and defend fluoridation so I will dedicate very little space debating her vapid and empty written statements.  One only has to listen to Rebecca King read the redundant words of Laura Gerald to know instantly which agency’s script is being repeated ad nauseam.  Laura’s statements share stunning similarity to Rebecca and Kevin Buchholtz’ testimony so can only be taken as more personal opinions from the peanut gallery.  When are these people going to wake up and realize that they are just another person born on the planet like you and me?

I will say that there was a hilarious though pathetic effort made by Director of the Health Board Gayle Harris to use Laura’s African ethnicity as a way to legitimize or somehow overpower past statements made by me in September 2012.

My statements which were referenced previously in this report alluded to civil rights activists Bernice & Alveda King MLK Jr’s Relatives) who condemned community water fluoridation in numerous public statements. If you actually listen to what I say the statements were clearly meant as encouragement to the board to stand on the side of civil rights and social justice, not necessarily because those people were black.  By this metric it’s ironically Gayle Harris who is using the race card, whilst reflecting that inner truth on to me by insinuating I made some kind of “assertion” about black people.

Listen below as Health Board Chair Gayle Harris states with pride that Laura is “African American” which somehow must grant her magical powers that make fluoridation a healthy proposition:

The Culminating Event

I did not last very long in the question and answer period.  I began to notice some legitimate questions being asked but no legitimate answers being offered in return.  I could easily see the deception playing out before me which framed this substance FSA as an inert & natural substance.

The first such question was posed by James Miller, who asked Amy Keyworth if groundwater fluoride was the same substance that is added to Durham’s drinking water.

Her response was that Fluoride is an ion – so therefore it uniformly exists wherever it is found naturally.  This might be true in her area of expertise but her lack of contextual information on the policy of water fluoridation is exposed instantly when she and the other experts  nods her head “yes” to the question.

The bitter truth which the council hates me repeating is that our city forces each citizen to pay for a Class 8 Corrosive Substance, the waste product filtered off the smoke stacks of phosphate manufacturing, bled at a consistent rate of 1 ppm directly into your drinking water for over 60 years.  When one calculates the actual damage done by this practice, it can only be considered a crime against humanity.

The Aftermath

Since I was forced to leave the building and not return, I only had my girlfriend as a mole in the now private health board meeting to capture the event. Unfortunately at the time I was using her phone to record the sheriff escorting me out, so we do not have video or recordings of what ensued after I left.  I have decided to dedicate a separate post to recount and detail what happened afterwards according to my girlfriend Charlee’s witness testimony.  Stay tuned!